Business

Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is slightly unusual, but with permission I should like to make a short statement about the conduct of the House during Question Time. This has been raised with me by a number of noble Lords. Before I make the statement, I want to make it absolutely clear that what I say has nothing at all to do with today's Questions.
	The guidance in the Companion is very clear: supplementary questions should be relevant, should seek information and should be confined to one or two points. I have also reminded my ministerial colleagues that initial Answers should be no longer than 75 words and that supplementary answers should be brief. I hope that this reminder is helpful.

Children: Diabetes

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they will take to improve the care of children with diabetes.

Lord Warner: My Lords, national guidance for improving standards of care for children with diabetes was published in the Diabetes National Service Framework in 2001. That was supplemented by further standards published in the Children's National Service Framework in 2004. As a result of monitoring the implementation of those standards, the national clinical directors for diabetes and for children have established a working group to help improve the ability of the NHS to meet the standards.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Nevertheless, does he recognise the important role played by specialist paediatric diabetic nurses, especially at a time when as many as four in five diabetic children fail to achieve proper monitoring of their blood sugar levels in their tests? Does he regret that only one in four PCTs is prioritising the appointment of such nurses in its local delivery plans? Can he also ensure that we have a full complement of school nurses and teachers trained in the treatment of diabetes, to avoid regrettable incidents such as that last week when a six year-old child was dismissed from school in Dorset?

Lord Warner: My Lords, it is for local diabetic teams to determine the appropriate composition to meet the needs of their communities, but we recommend multi-disciplinary paediatric diabetes teams, including specialist nurses, in the national service framework. I share the concerns expressed by my noble friend about the episode in Dorset. I think that the school has apologised, and in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills we have produced guidance to help schools in this area.

Lord Addington: My Lords, is there a target for the number of designated consultant paediatricians who are specialists in diabetes, and how far have we come to meeting such a target?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not aware that there is such a target, but I will check and write to the noble Lord.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that type 2 diabetes should be avoided at all costs? Should not schools offer health education to encourage children to take more exercise, eat less sugar and follow a healthy diet, so that they grow up without developing diabetes?

Lord Warner: My Lords, it would be difficult to disagree with the noble Baroness. Public health measures are in place to try to tackle the problem of obesity in children, which often leads to the development of type 2 diabetes. A good example is the WATCH IT! programme in Leeds, which tries to tackle some of the problems.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, will my noble friend congratulate the Austrian presidency on prioritising diabetes as a matter of concern, especially type 2 diabetes? Does he recognise that there are 20,000 children with type 1 diabetes and, at the moment, only 200 a year with type 2? Children with type 1 diabetes must not be forgotten.

Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We need to tackle issues around both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in children. We fully support the initiative taken by the Austrian presidency, which has made diabetes a key issue, and we are participating in the work that it is doing. Our national clinical director for diabetes is leading the work that we are doing with the Austrian presidency.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the gun-type syringe available to all children who have to inject themselves daily and are capable of using it?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there are a variety of ways of providing support to children in this area, including inhalation pumps. I shall write to the noble Lord with more details of the processes.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that only a quarter of primary care trusts have prioritised improvements in paediatric services in their local delivery plans? Is he satisfied with that?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures. We leave it to PCTs to assess the health needs of their local community and to determine their priorities in the light of that.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the specialist nature of managing childhood diabetes and childhood obesity often requires hospital attention, as opposed to going to the GP. Given that, will the White Paper mean that treatment facilities of this kind may be transferred closer to the patient's home, removing the need for children to attend hospital, which can often be a daunting experience?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Earl is right: visiting hospital can be a daunting experience for children. It will be for the PCTs in the light of their discussions with specialist clinicians to set up the most appropriate services, but, like him, I hope that some of the services could move closer to home, as is the spirit of the White Paper.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the density of diabetes in children is greater among ethnic minority children? To what extent is that the case?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we know that type 2 diabetes is much higher in a number of ethnic minority communities, in poorer areas and in more disadvantaged groups of the population, so my noble friend is right.

Higher Education: Part-time Students

Baroness Lockwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made towards increasing financial support for part-time students in higher education institutions.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are increasing the maximum fee grant for part-time students by 27 per cent next year, from £885 to £1,125, while maintaining the new course grant at £250. We are also raising the income thresholds to qualify for support, and the Access to Learning Fund allocation for part-time students will increase from £3 million to £12 million. That is the best deal ever offered to part-time students in England. Devolved administrations make their own arrangements.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that welcome information. However, can he confirm that, after variable fees become operable and their effects have been monitored, there will be no delay in implementing all the HEFCE proposals, including the teaching element, for part-time students in our universities?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, last November my honourable friend the higher education Minister announced an extra £40 million of support over the next two years in respect of under-represented groups in part-time higher education. The consultation undertaken by HEFCE on the new funding methodology has now been completed. HEFCE is considering its final recommendations, and we intend to make those available in due course.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of Birkbeck College, which concentrates on part-time students. Everybody will welcome what the Government are doing directly for part-time students. Ministers have given specific assurances that help will be provided for the institutions themselves, such as Birkbeck, the Open University and other universities. As my noble friend has said, some other universities are seeking to delay the introduction of HEFCE's recommendations. Will my noble friend ignore those other universities—perhaps telling us who they are—and give us a clear assurance that the Government will not delay the introduction recommended by HEFCE of increased grants?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, the £40 million that we announced last November will proceed to be allocated in any event. It is probably best to draw his other comments to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister responsible for universities.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I declare an interest as Chancellor of the Open University, the largest university in the country with part-time students. Will the Minister press the funding council to complete the review of the teaching funding methodology in accordance with the commitments given by the Government at Report stage of the Higher Education Bill on 14 June 2004? My concern and that of many of my colleagues is that earlier commitments may not be adhered to or may well be delayed, for reasons that are not known to me but may be known to the Minister. The part-time sector needs to know the date on which the review will be completed and those promises fulfilled.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work as Chancellor of the Open University. I know that the whole House is strongly supportive of the Open University, which is one of the greatest creations of Labour governments past. The consultation for the review has been completed. HEFCE is considering its recommendations, and Ministers will take full account of them soon.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we welcome what the Minister has said about financial support for part-time students, but does he agree that there is in practice a decrease in spending, as the opportunities for lifelong learning are diminishing daily and all over the country the number of part-time courses for students in higher education is being cut? Will he comment?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the facts speak for themselves. Nationally, part-time undergraduate student numbers rose by 45 per cent between 1997 and 2004, thanks to the support that this Labour Government give to the universities.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a lot more money would be available for part-time students in higher education if enough of the poor quality courses, particularly in the non-technic departments of the former polytechnics and in the minor universities, were simply closed down?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we believe in the market when it comes to such matters, and these are courses that students choose to attend. They are also subject to inspection, and I do not think that the noble Lord can make statements about whole institutions being of poor quality.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposals put forward by HEFCE for the new teaching fund allocations work very much to the advantage of part-time institutions and are part of the mechanism to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, referred, of offsetting the advantage of top-up fees for full-time institutions? Will he make sure that pressure is put on HEFCE to bring the new proposals forward now rather than delaying them for three years, as has been proposed?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I stress that HEFCE is considering those matters very seriously. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords should not read anything into the fact that it is considering them properly.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the Minister think that the undertakings given during the passage of the Higher Education Bill to deal with the disadvantage that institutions with large numbers of part-time students would suffer as a result of the introduction of top-up fees have now been met?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I believe that we are in the process of meeting them, including by the measures I set out in answer to the original Question.

Lord Rix: My Lords, I must declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of East London. Thanks to the additional funds that have been promised by the Government we have a record number of enrolments for our part-time courses. However, details of the process by which students will be able to claim help in September this year remain unclear. When will the forms and the necessary guidance notes to apply for help be printed and published?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I will respond to the noble Lord without delay on that matter. However, he is right about the increase in enrolments. Enrolments for undergraduate courses in the Open University have increased by 32 per cent since 1997, which is a great tribute to the work of the OU.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, what benefit, if any, will students who are above the normal university age range get from the new proposals from HEFCE?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, part-time students tend to be older—I am told that the average age of part-time students is 36—so they will gain considerably from the new arrangements that I have set out.

Energy: Renewable

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What developments there have been since 2004 in tidal and wave energy production; and what research and development funding they have allocated to these renewable sources of energy.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, since 2004, £11.6 million has been committed across 13 projects to support research and development into wave and tidal energy through the DTI's technology programme. In addition, £50 million has been allocated to a marine renewables deployment fund that will support the first small grid-connected pre-commercial demonstrations. The technologies have also been supported through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's Supergen marine consortium and the Carbon Trust's marine energy challenge.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he accept that his previous reservations about tidal lagoons in particular are no longer valid, since Ofgem's independent report found that the equivalent annual cost of tidal lagoon power was £2 less than for offshore wind? Given the predictable nature of the tides and the environmental benefits of constructing tidal lagoons, should not the DTI be fully behind them now?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not change my views about tidal lagoons at all. Every time I look at the issue I am more convinced that the costs are still way beyond what one can find elsewhere. This is a mature technology which we know a lot about. It is quite easy to cost, and the costs come out at about four times the figure that the noble Baroness mentioned.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that, some years ago, it was estimated that the Severn barrage could reduce Britain's carbon emissions by 3 per cent and supply 6 per cent of the electricity needs of England and Wales? Is it not time for a re-examination of the case for a Severn barrage, taking account of Britain's increased dependence on imported energy; the development of markets in renewables and greenhouse gas emission savings; intensified concern about the impact of climate change in terms of flooding; and the reduced cost of long-term capital?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we looked again at the Severn barrage project as part of the last energy White Paper. The facts remain very similar. It would produce about 5 per cent of the UK energy needs, but it would cost £14 billion. It could not be brought forward on a commercial basis in the private sector, and I believe that it still raises strong environmental concerns. We recognise that wave and tidal barrages have the potential to make significant reductions in the long term—after 2020—and we will continue to explore the opportunities, but it does not yet seem to come within the right parameters.

Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, although wave and tidal power may eventually contribute something worth while to the energy requirements of this country, it is highly unlikely that wind power ever will, although at the same time it desecrates the countryside? Does he accept that any energy policy that does not have a major nuclear component will never succeed?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are a number of different points in that. I do not agree with the noble Lord; I believe that wind power can provide quite a substantial amount of our energy needs—probably up to 20 per cent. After that, it becomes much more expensive. The question whether it is sensible to have a nuclear component has been discussed many times in the House. There are differences of opinion, but many people feel that a diversity of sources is very important.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what is needed is not just more research but the actual starting-up of decentralised electricity generation—for example, through combined heat and power stations, using wood and biomass?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no one source of energy will meet all our needs. Combined heat and power can play a part, but to think that it is going to make the big impact is simply to ignore the realities of the situation.

Lord Ezra: My Lords—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Ezra!

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is not standing up—I am.
	Will the Minister ask his colleague who does building regulations whether it would be a sensible idea to ensure that every new house that is built has solar panels on its roof, which would automatically take electricity out of and put it into the electric grid? That would not add significantly to the cost of building a new house.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one has to pay some attention to the cost factors involved in that debate. Photovoltaics is still by a long way the most expensive kind of energy, so to put that into building regulations would build a huge cost into our energy bills.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, my noble friend, in her Question, referred to an Ofgem study, which concluded that the capital costs of tidal lagoons would be competitive with offshore wind. However, the Minister said that his study showed that they would cost four times as much. Would he get in touch with Ofgem and try to co-ordinate what the real situation is?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know of that study, and I shall most certainly find out what it said. The briefing that I had was based on the latest figures, and I think that the figure that the noble Lord mentioned would have been taken account of, if that was the case. I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness if I have got it wrong.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that major long-term projects, such as the Severn barrage, which has been spoken of, will never be viable until a guaranteed major long-term financial preference is given to green forms of electricity generation rather than conventional fuels? Until that is done, the Severn barrage and everything else is pie in the sky.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is extremely expensive at this point, and it is difficult to see that the cost will decrease in future. We are talking about a large amount of concrete, and I do not think that that cost will decrease. Clearly, if you are prepared to put in enormous sums to subsidise it, you can make it viable on that basis—but only on that basis.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I acknowledge that an energy review is taking place during 2006, but what steps have Her Majesty's Government taken so far since they made their commitments—they were, after all, made in the 2003 White Paper—to reconcile the growing need to meet the carbon reduction target of 20 per cent by 2010 with their duty to ensure the integrity and security of electricity and gas supplies?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have debated in the House for many months the question of wind turbines and renewable obligation certificates. Those are all methods by which to do exactly what the noble Lord is asking.

Legal Services Commission

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What analysis has been undertaken of the likely effects of the decision taken by the Legal Services Commission to cease funding of specialist support services in England and Wales from July this year.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, specialist support contracts form part of the Legal Services Commission's special projects budget. That programme was reviewed and consulted on last summer. Given the pressure on the limited legal aid budget and the number of clients needing front-line legal advice, the commission concluded that the money would now be better spent on direct front-line advice to vulnerable legal aid clients.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister for, if I may say so, her somewhat disappointing Answer. Does she not agree that the commission's decision will have the effect in practice of withdrawing expert support from the front line? As the CAB, a truly front-line organisation, points out, that will have serious implications for its most socially excluded and vulnerable clients, who cannot secure such expert advice for themselves. Will the Minister therefore urge the commission to reconsider that decision?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am always sad to disappoint the noble Baroness, especially on her birthday. I do not agree with her proposition. The £2.3 million that will not be used from the end of the current contracts in July will be used to fund about 9,000 new front-line opportunities for people to get clear advice. In addition, £78 million is being spent on not-for-profit organisations, including CABs, to provide specialist support.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have no wish to deny anyone access to justice, but will that not be the exact effect of the decision? Would the Minister care to admit that this, like other decisions taken recently—for instance, the substantial increase in family court fees—has been forced on the Legal Services Commission and the DCA against their will by the other Chancellor in 11 Downing Street?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is only one Lord Chancellor and only one Chancellor of the Exchequer. There could never be another Chancellor in any context. I disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord's assertion that this has been forced on anyone and that somehow the changes in the scheme will reduce the opportunities to get advice. The noble Lord will know well that there are probably about 1 million occasions where problems are unresolved because people do not know their rights or how to access advice. Anything that we can do to get front-line advice to people effectively and appropriately should be welcomed, and the change should be welcomed on that basis.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister indicate what kind of specialist support services will no longer be funded?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there were 17 specialist support contracts in England and two in Wales to barristers' chambers, solicitors' firms and 11 not-for-profit organisations, with a budget for a whole year of approximately £2.9 million. I have already indicated that £78 million is available to not-for-profit organisations to provide their own specialist advice. The fundamental change has been to the quality of front-line advice. The contracting arrangements brought in have improved that dramatically. Together with peer review and other quality standards, that means that we can make the change and, as I indicated, create up to 9,000 opportunities to get front-line advice.

Transport for London Bill [HL]

Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Whitehaven Harbour Bill [HL]

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 14 [Grants]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This clause says:
	"(1) The Secretary of State may make grants to Natural England of such amounts as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
	(2) A grant under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
	The purpose of opposing the clause is to explore how independent the clause renders Natural England.
	On the previous Committee sitting we said that Natural England was very important; certainly the Liberal Democrats accept that it is. We also said that it should be able to give advice to which Ministers across government must pay due regard. I tabled the relevant amendment to that effect, and the Government have not yet fully accepted the case for it, although I live in hope that they will reconsider. Irrespective of whether they do so, there is still the question of the independence of Natural England if it is reliant on handouts from the Secretary of State. What happens if future Ministers are not happy with the advice that Natural England gives? I accept that that is not the case with present Ministers, but we are drafting legislation for the future, and a future Minister may hold views that we could not even envisage at present. Should we make Natural England so reliant on grants, which could be withdrawn at any time or be made subject to conditions with which that body was not at all happy? I submit that that renders Natural England far from independent.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. In earlier debates I asked a range of questions on how Natural England would be financed. The Minister has kindly given me some estimates. I asked whether any finance might be provided by the national lottery. If that is the case, I do not think that it is a very good way to run an important non-departmental public body such as Natural England. I would be grateful if the Minister would define a little more clearly how he sees the financial side of this important new non-departmental public body working. As the noble Baroness said, if the Government did not like the tack that Natural England were taking in the future, they could then withdraw or lessen the grant to make its job more difficult.
	In earlier debates we discussed the likely reduction of money allocated to the Rural Development Service. As we know, that money is in jeopardy. The relevant reduction ranges from some 18 per cent to 40 per cent. If that sizeable reduction occurs, how will Natural England finance itself to do the very job that we are requesting it to do? I support the noble Baroness's raising of this issue again today. I await the Minister's response with interest.

Lord Bach: I am afraid that I do not have very much to say on this issue except to remind the Committee that the clause gives the Secretary of State powers to fund Natural England and place conditions on its funding. That is an entirely standard provision, found in some form in the founding legislation of all non-departmental public bodies, which allows them to be funded through departments; that is to say, via the Secretary of State. Of course, I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is saying about the dangers inherent in government funding of an independent organisation, but that is what happens, and has happened for years, to some very independent and robust bodies. There is no reason to believe for a moment that Natural England will be any different from those. In our view the clause's deletion would make a nonsense of funding of Natural England. Indeed, it would make a complete nonsense of the funding of any NDPB. That is why it is in the Bill and why it is an important clause.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to a letter that I had written to her and to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, with copies to all other noble Lords. I hope that it has arrived by this afternoon. In that letter was a proper discussion of Natural England's budget. I was asked what proportion of funding would be provided by Defra and what it might be required to seek from other sources such as the lottery. I can look at the current year's budgets of the bodies that will form Natural England. In round terms, that income represents £17 million, or about 5 per cent of the total expenditure of £360 million. I have not counted EU co-funding of the agri-environment programme or the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund as income, as I do not think that type of income is of concern to the noble Baroness. Much the larger source of income has been the lottery. Over the next two years, income is projected to drop to around £10 million unless it is supplemented with sums not yet awarded.
	We had much discussion about the financing of Natural England during the first three days in Committee. I repeat that we need the clause because we are setting up an NDPB; the noble Baroness need not worry about its independence.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I ask him again to tell the Committee whether currently English Nature and the relevant part of the Countryside Agency are funded in this manner. Obviously, the Rural Development Service is slightly different because it is part of the department, and I do not include it.

Lord Bach: Yes, they are. The noble Baroness is right about the Rural Development Service, which is a core part of Defra. The others are financed in that way.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. As he says, this way of funding bodies has been custom and practice for some time. It draws out a certain issue about where exactly the line of independence is. I have continued to question where it is with the Food Standards Agency in the Department of Health and so on. It at least merits having an eye kept on it.

Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Guidance]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 206:
	Page 6, line 16, after "must" insert "by order"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This is a probing amendment to enable a debate on exactly when it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to give guidance on the functions of Natural England, particularly those that relate to regional planning and associated matters. The independence of Natural England in regional planning is a sensitive issue; it is probably the most sensitive issue. My amendment is to enable us to discuss how there would be any input from elected Members, MPs, your Lordships' House and other representatives about the sort of guidance that the Secretary of State may choose, from time to time, to give Natural England about the functions that enable it to make observations on planning and associated matters. I beg to move.

Viscount Eccles: I very much support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is possibly a more complete way of achieving what I have set out in my amendment, which follows. In my amendment, I question the policy towards the relationship between the Secretary of State and Parliament, as did the noble Baroness.
	Clause 15(4) reads:
	"The Secretary of State must publish any guidance given under this section".
	The amendment would alter the wording to:
	"The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament any guidance given under this section".
	It is entirely usual to give the Secretary of State a duty to keep Parliament fully informed on matters of significance. The proposed duty "must publish" is subjective. The Secretary of State could decide what to publicise and to whom—a much less satisfactory option than the duty to inform Parliament—not that that duty would in any way preclude publicity—quite the contrary. The full text of any guidance would be available for the publication of comment by any interested party, including both the Secretary of State and Natural England. The amendment therefore improves the balance of the relationship between the executive and the legislature and increases the likelihood of well informed publicity.

The Duke of Montrose: Our Amendment No. 216 is grouped with this amendment. Here, I dare say we are touching on the whole sphere of open and joined-up government. Those who volunteer in public service, such as school governors, county or district councillors and many others, will be aware of the thousands of hours spent cancelling and rearranging meetings because of delays in publishing consultations, regulations and guidelines. For example, I have heard how on school boards frequently the local officers hold meetings to alert governors to changes which are on the way and which will affect, for example, the budgeting process. There is then a lengthy hiatus before the details are available. Obviously discussions are held well in advance and the government officials are clear about what has to be achieved. The hold-up seems to be in moving the details from Whitehall to the coalface.
	Guidance on how Natural England is to deal with regional planning matters and others of its duties—for example, compulsory purchases for experimental schemes—will be most influential and will affect many people. It is important that the Secretary of State should have a clear need to prioritise this part of his department's duties and ensure that his staff concentrate on the mundane aspects of legislation as well as the more interesting, groundbreaking ones.

Lord Bach: These three amendments relate to the power of the Secretary of State to give Natural England guidance. The Secretary of State needs this power to help to ensure that Natural England continues to focus on achieving government outcomes over time and to allow her to give guidance on how its purposes are to be achieved. This is a necessary provision for a body which will deliver such a large amount of the Government's policies and which will be the source of the Government's expertise in key areas. At the risk of repeating myself, I can say that the power to give guidance is a standard provision for most large non-departmental public bodies—for example, the Environment Agency.
	As the noble Viscount has just reminded us, guidance from the Secretary of State will be published, which means that the process will be open and transparent. Guidance will be on topics such as Natural England's role in relation to regional planning and associated matters, as referred to specifically in the Bill at Clause 15(1). I shall have a little more to say about regional planning in a moment. The guidance will be discursive, by which I mean that it will resemble an essay rather than a statutory instrument. Although Natural England must have regard to the guidance, it will not be bound by it.
	Following pre-legislative scrutiny by, and at the suggestion of, the EFRA Committee, subsections (3) and (6) were inserted to make Clause 15 clearer. Subsection (5) was added on Report in another place to add extra certainty about how such guidance can be varied or revoked.
	Amendments Nos. 206 and 215 would effectively make this guidance the subject of an order before Parliament. As I indicated earlier, the guidance will include topics such as Natural England's role in regional planning. We do not think it appropriate to make such guidance subject to parliamentary procedure. The priority has to be that a wide range of stakeholders understand English Nature's role in such matters. That is why we emphasise publication and think that that is the right approach.
	I turn to the issue of why regional planning processes are not specifically referred to in the Bill—for example, regional spatial strategies. A list of regional planning processes within subsection (1) would be relatively inflexible and could become out of date quickly. That addresses the concerns of the EFRA Committee and clarifies the importance that we place on Natural England's engagement at regional level. Will the regional planning board bodies have to listen to Natural England? The clause cannot be used to place a duty on other public bodies to listen to Natural England. The Select Committee report made it clear that it did not think that any person had a right to be heard at a public examination.
	Clause 4 gives Natural England very robust powers to ask other public bodies for an explanation if it believes that its advice has not been acted on. Any public body is at risk of judicial review through the courts if a party feels that Natural England is acting unlawfully.
	On Amendment No. 216, to which the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, spoke, I am advised that a strict requirement of "contemporaneously" could provide practical difficulties. As a matter of protocol we expect Natural England to have a copy of the final guidance as issued by the Secretary of State a short time before it is published to the world at large, so that Natural England has the opportunity to respond to press inquiries. If the guidance is published on the web, it would need to be uploaded on to a server. If the guidance is published in paper form, someone has to produce the paper copies and make them available. Even if these arrangements could be put into effect very speedily, it is unlikely that publication could be genuinely contemporaneous. I hope that the noble Duke does not think that I am making a petty point; it is "contemporaneously" that is the problem.
	It is our intention that the guidance will be circulated to interested parties and published on the website as soon as practicably possible. It is already implicit in Clause 15 that by publishing guidance we want to be open and transparent. Because of the concern expressed by the noble Duke, we shall consider his amendment to see whether we can insert a phrase that indicates dispatch in publishing the guidance without creating the practical difficulties that I have tried to describe.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for that reassurance. We could see a problem if we suggested so many days, or something like that, which would make the provision too tight. It would be most helpful if the Government could produce suitable wording.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply, and noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am glad that the Government will give some further thought to these issues, and will come back in response to the noble Duke at least. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 207 to 214 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 217 to 224 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Directions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount Eccles: In opposing the Question that Clause 16 stand part of the Bill, I wish to find out how the power to give Natural England directions will be used. The existing literature on directions—in Craies on Legislation 2004, for example, states:
	"Acts frequently require or allow a Minister to give directions, generally in respect of some administrative matter. So long as there is a duty to comply with the direction it can be seen as a form of subordinate legislation. Generally the duty to comply will be express, but, particularly where the direction is given to a public body that is susceptible to the administrative law process of judicial review, it may be appropriate for the duty to comply to be left to be implied".
	Clause 16(1) reads:
	"The Secretary of State may give Natural England general or specific directions as to the exercise of its functions".
	I draw attention to "general", as it is related to "functions". This does not sound like administrative matters.
	On Second Reading, the Minister said, in his reply to the debate:
	"Natural England will be no less independent than its predecessor bodies".—[Official Report, 7/11/05; col. 470.]
	Yet I can find no directions clause in, for example, either the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which is in any way comparable to Clause 16. Presumably, however the clause is implemented, it is not intended to reduce—nor will it have the effect of reducing—Natural England's independence. What, then, is it for?
	There is a clue in the Defra memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's sixth report, which states on page 40, paragraph 81:
	"Clause 16 (directions to the Natural England) Power conferred on: Secretary of State Power exercisable by: Direction Parliamentary procedure: None".
	I suppose that directions have hitherto been meant to deal only with administrative matters. If they have done more, or are intended to, surely there would be a parliamentary procedure at least equivalent to that applied to statutory instruments. No Secretary of State would wish to deny Parliament access to policy change.
	However, Defra goes on to say:
	"These . . . powers of direction contained in the bill are drafted in similar mode so that they must all be in writing and published in a way that the person giving the directions thinks is suitable . . . All directions may either be of general or specific nature. It is considered by the department to . . . have these direction making powers in circumstances where a body with significant responsibilities is not acting in a way that is consistent with the purposes for which it is established".
	That could be interpreted as meaning that a Bill is laid before your Lordships' House, debated on Second Reading, Clauses 3 to 10 are debated in detail in Committee and on Report and yet, once enacted, the Secretary of State can introduce detailed rules of the game without reference to Parliament—new and unexpected rules, perhaps.
	Am I right to conclude that Clause 16 goes wider than any similar clause in predecessor Acts? What is the Government's policy on directions, and how will it be applied to Natural England? Will the House be able to consider, before Report, a draft of the directions which the Secretary of State intends to make?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, eloquently puts some of the reservations I have been expressing throughout this section of the Bill.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for having raised this subject. Clause 16 does not go any wider than existing powers of this kind. As with most NDPBs which deliver the democratically elected government's policies, the Secretary of State needs to be able to give Natural England directions, because they provide a bottom line to ensure that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the NDPB—so that no Secretary of State can say, "I would have stopped this or that NDPB doing that, but I couldn't". It is difficult to give the Committee practical examples because we are not aware of any situation where English Nature or the Countryside Agency has been directed to act in a certain manner despite the powers to direct these organisations in relation to many of their existing functions. Also covered could be actions that might expose the board to legal challenge, perhaps in a public health emergency.
	This clause is not an effort to undermine Natural England's independence. As the noble Viscount hinted, the Environment Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Agency are all subject to directions and none of them lacks independence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young—the chief executive of the Environment Agency—attested on the first day in Committee.
	Powers for the Secretary of State to give directions are normal throughout Whitehall and are essential for accountability. I hope that the noble Viscount approves of the requirement that we have included for any directions to be published to ensure openness and transparency. The parliamentary briefing from the confederation of the three organisations that will come together to make up Natural England stated:
	"As a non Departmental Public Body we accept the need to account to government in fulfilling our statutory duties as set down by Parliament. We therefore accept also the powers for Government to guide and, in the last resort, direct Natural England".
	It welcomed,
	"the reassurance given in Clauses 15 and/or 16 by the requirements to consult, the transparency of publication and the specificity of the obligation set out therein".
	Those are important words. The reassurances are, if anything, greater than those that currently apply to English Nature and the Countryside Agency, which have never been accused of lacking independence and have a strong track record of influential policy advice.
	The fears expressed by the noble Viscount this afternoon do not have credence because these directions are in line with the directions given to other such bodies.

Earl Peel: I think I am right in saying that my noble friend, who has clearly done extensive research on these matters, said that a similar clause does not appear in the Wildlife and Countryside Act or the CROW Act. While I appreciate the Minister's reassurances, he has not quite answered the question of why Clause 16 has been introduced into the Bill in the first place.

Lord Carter: I think that is because those Bills do not include organisations that need direction from the Secretary of State.

Lord Bach: I suspect that this answer will not give much satisfaction to the noble Viscount or the noble Earl. My advice is that the effects of Clause 16 are to be found in other Acts. The list of non-departmental public bodies subject to directions from the Secretary of State include the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, English Nature—although some of its activities are exempt—and the Countryside Agency, as well as the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, the Environment Agency, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Home Grown Cereals Authority and the Meat and Livestock Commission. The advice I have received is that the Bill is not different. Of course, if I am wrong about that, the noble Viscount will let me know.

Viscount Eccles: I am grateful to the Minister for his interpretation of the situation. As noble Lords will have noticed, I have three more stand part objections later in the Committee proceedings. So at this stage I would just like to follow up my three questions very shortly. I asked whether this clause was wider than a similar clause in the predecessor Acts to the Bill because of the statement that the position of the successor bodies, Natural England and the others in this Bill, is similar to that of their predecessors. So, it is the rules of the game of their predecessors which are of particular interest to me, for better or for worse.
	I asked another question. The Minister essentially replied that directions are a weapon of last resort. In a subsequent debate I shall touch on unreasonableness, which is the test of whether you have to move in and give directions of last resort. If that is the situation then that is one thing. However, I also asked whether any draft directions were intended, which would come into effect either immediately after the Bill is enacted or shortly thereafter. As the clause is so widely drawn, I believe that it would be right for the House to see any draft directions and to debate them at a later stage.

Lord Bach: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I will do my best to answer those questions. I have already said that the clause is no wider than similar clauses in other legislation. We see directions very much as a last resort—that was the example I attempted to give. There are no draft directions of any kind. I hope I have answered the direct questions that the noble Viscount has just repeated to me.

Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Commission for Rural Communities]:

Lord Boston of Faversham: The Question is that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill. In view of the groupings, I should at this stage point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 225 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 226 to 231 inclusive.

On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It is with some excitement that we move to Chapter 2. I am sure the Minister will agree that we have long awaited this moment. Chapter 2 deals with the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities. The purpose of my opposing the clause is to explore in greater depth than we were able to at Second Reading the need for the Commission for Rural Communities and to enable some debate about that need.
	I still contend that when the Government initially thought of the Bill in response to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the intention was not to create another layer of quangos. The Minister replied to that point at Second Reading. Indeed, other noble Lords spoke and expressed the very evident need for rural areas to have somebody to represent them. I absolutely would not disagree with that. Last Thursday we had a very interesting debate about the needs of rural areas to which the Minister gave a full reply. However, I question whether we need yet another quango to represent those areas.
	I remind the Committee that in England there are nearly 5,000 locally appointed bodies and 50,000 appointees, which is approximately three times the number of elected local councillors. The Committee will recollect that I am quite exercised about the fact that there are democratically elected local councillors, MPs who represent rural areas—in most cases, very ably—and an entire democratic layer of people who should be representing the needs of those areas.
	The purpose of the Commission for Rural Communities, as set out in Clause 18(1)(a), is to raise,
	"awareness among relevant persons and the public of rural needs".
	But I would point out that, first, we have elected people who can do that and, secondly, when Defra was set up from a reborn MAFF, if you like, the very change of name to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggested that it would be the champion of rural affairs and the body that undertook rural-proofing and so on. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, mentioned in his report that he imagined that Defra would undertake rural-proofing. The Government may be taking an easy way out by creating an independent body. If rural-proofing does not work, they can say, "The body was not really doing its work". If it does, they can say, "How well we have done in creating a body that does that work so well". Either way, the Government win, but democracy loses out.
	The Minister will no doubt say that there is provision here for checking the performance of the other bodies that are supposed to be delivering rural regeneration and so on. There are already plenty of bodies checking performance. There is the Audit Commission, which audits all sorts of things. We even have the Performance and Innovation Unit, which from time to time produces excellent reports on a number of subjects. There is no reason that it could not report on that every so often. This is yet another body that duplicates some work already being done.
	The Bill is more retrospective than most, in that the Commission for Rural Communities already exists. It is sending out communications—indeed, its chairman has been round to lobby me on why it should exist—but we have not yet passed the Bill. I do not speak against Dr Burgess, who is doing a tremendous job already lobbying for rural areas, but it is curious to have something in existence that has not yet been agreed through the democratic process.
	When the matter was discussed in another place, that argument was strongly advanced by the Select Committee. The government side did not take that view, but we enjoyed the support of the Conservatives. Mr James Paice said:
	"We share the view that the CRC is a wholly unnecessary body that will almost certainly be ineffective in achieving the Government's objectives"—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 23/6/05; col. 97.]
	That puts it as concisely as I can.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness mentioned the Select Committee. I think that she meant the Standing Committee on the Bill. The Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also commented on that. I shall discuss that in due course. I think that she means the committee considering the Bill in the Commons.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: That is a very useful correction and I am grateful to the Minister for that.
	So there is a question whether we need the Commission for Rural Communities at all. There is its cost—we have all seen the regulatory impact assessment. Of course, the merging of some Countryside Agency functions with rural development agencies and Natural England will save some money. But a cost will be attached to the Commission for Rural Communities continuing which absolutely has to be justified. The claims are that the programme should pay for itself within three years of completion in 2007.
	I remind noble Lords that when the Government listened to the many voices from rural areas about the critical situation affecting affordable housing and then sought solutions, they did not turn to the Countryside Agency or to the new Commission for Rural Communities. They created yet another commission, which is chaired by Elinor Goodman. I am sure that her report will be very worth while, but that is an extremely good example of the Government's ability to create and fund a commission study when there is a need to address a particular subject in rural areas and to conduct a very concentrated study on something that those elected in rural areas, be they MPs or councillors, have highlighted as pressing.
	I contend that there is no need for another very general quango that may itself commission yet other commissions. All this undermines the basic idea of democracy.

Lord Carter: This is an interesting debate on the amendments in the group led by the clause stand part debate. I added my name to Amendments Nos. 225, 242, 247 and 255, so it will be helpful if we can deal with all the matters attached to the concept of the CRC. This chapter is of course about the functions of the CRC. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked, do we need it at all?
	I was struck just recently by an excellent briefing from the Countryside Alliance, which I am sure other noble Lords received, which set out a whole range of policy recommendations. I shall quote one or two of them:
	"Rural areas should be assessed on their own terms and public investment/funding allocation should make due allowance for rural sparcity. The countryside is a different place to the towns, and it should not be assumed that what is a suitable type and level of investment for the towns is also right for rural areas. SSA spending in rural areas must be raised to the national average. There should be no competition between rural and urban areas for funding—both urban and rural areas need adequate funding, not one at the expense of the other".
	As I say, there are a large number of policy recommendations on those lines. I just wonder who, in the absence of the CRC, will be making the case across government for the arguments which we all understand and that have been put so well by the Countryside Alliance. It is unrealistic to expect the local authorities or the other organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned to be able to do this. She also mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I remind the House that I quoted at Second Reading what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said about the concept of the CRC in his evidence to the EFRA Select Committee at col. 51 on 9 November 2004, as it is worth remembering:
	"I was quite happy to see the policy advisory responsibility of the Countryside Agency continue. The argument was whether that was done through a revised Countryside Agency or through the Rural Affairs Forum. On balance, I think the Government was probably right to go for the Countryside Agency because I think it is more structured to give the sort of policy advice that is necessary".
	The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, clearly accepted the concept of the CRC, so to quote him in aid of the argument on the other side is perhaps a shade misleading. The noble Baroness also mentioned Mr James Paice, who said:
	"There is obviously going to be a Commission for Rural Communities".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 23/6/05; col. 117.]
	So it seems that the Official Opposition accept the idea.
	I mentioned the Standing Committee, and I could not help noticing in the debate on the CRC that Mr Colin Breed, who I believe is the Liberal Democrat spokesman, spoke extremely strongly in the morning against the concept of the CRC. Sadly, he was not present in the afternoon when the vote was taken on the clause stand part; he had an important constituency engagement, apparently.
	Perhaps I may repeat the questions I put at Second Reading. Who will do the rural-proofing and rural advocacy, have a direct line to the Prime Minister, and provide the information now provided by the Countryside Agency and its successor body? I asked those questions deliberately, but they were not answered by the noble Baroness when she wound up the debate for her party or by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It would be helpful if those who oppose the concept of the CRC could state clearly and in terms who is to do the rural-proofing and advocacy, have a direct line to the Prime Minister—a factor mentioned in later amendments—and provide the excellent information now available from the agencies.
	The idea that local authorities can do this is, let us say, to have a romantic view of the role of those bodies. Who in a local authority has a direct line to the Prime Minister? Has the LGA been asked? Moreover, which of the 20 organisations that have briefed us on the Bill actually supports abandoning the concept of the CRC? So far as I am aware, every body supports the proposals in the Bill. What message will those parties which support the abolition of the CRC send to the rural community if the CRC is successfully removed by this Committee?
	The noble Baroness mentioned Defra. Who is to rural-proof Defra? She looks surprised but, much as I hate to say it, if she has any idea of what happens in government she will know of the interdepartmental horsetrading that goes on when policy is being described. You need someone with a direct line to the Prime Minister who is able to go over the head of departments and say, "This is the line that must be followed". That was done extremely ably by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, during his chairmanship of the Countryside Agency.
	I understand that the Question whether a clause should stand part of the Bill provides an opportunity for us to have a general debate. I am sure we can then take a general decision on Report. But the arguments for the abolition of the CRC will have to be put much more strongly and cogently than has been the case so far.

The Lord Bishop of Exeter: Yesterday it was my privilege to introduce in the Church of England's General Synod a report on the future of the rural Church and its contribution to rural life. In the debate that followed, speaker after speaker drew on their own experience to call the attention of the synod to the hidden nature of many of the problems and challenges facing our rural communities. Rural poverty, social exclusion and restriction of choice—especially for women, young people and the very old—may be found in small isolated pockets and thus hardly show up on the radar of the larger scheme of things, yet they are deeply real to those for whom they are the experience of their daily lives. Many of those people, especially in the remoter and more sparsely populated areas of rural England are, as my right reverend friend the Bishop of Norwich put it, invisible citizens.
	The creation of the CRC, as I understand it, is partly designed to ensure that these invisible citizens are made visible and their voices, so often drowned out by metropolitan noise, are heard. It seems perverse, therefore, to oppose the creation of a national body with such an important remit. Of course there are regional differences, but rural disadvantage, rural poverty and rural needs must be viewed from a national perspective, and national solutions must be found and championed.
	Many of those who spoke in the synod debate yesterday voiced the need for a strong and independent rural advocate, backed by a body properly equipped for the task and able to provide robust rural-proofing of that wide range of government activity that shapes for good or ill the lives of rural people and their communities. Who, for example, will seek effective rural-proofing of the Government's choice agenda, when for many in rural areas it is precisely the lack and impossibility of choice that lies at the heart of impoverishment and social exclusion and is a restriction on effective community development? I make the point in no spirit of contention, but merely as a statement of real need.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, knows, I have listened very carefully to the arguments of those who say that issues of this kind are best dealt with at the local level, but I am afraid that it is a vain hope and entirely unrealistic. Some of the bodies suggested as those able to fulfil a local role, like the RDAs, themselves need rural-proofing, and in any case the RDAs still have to prove their capacity to bring about rural regeneration.
	I here declare an interest as chair of the Devon Strategic Partnership. Together with all my fellow chairs across the south-west, I have deep concerns about RDAs as the sole or principal conduits of rural delivery or channels of rural advocacy. They do not have the membership, experience or remit sufficient to be effective in these roles. Similarly, the regional rural forums, as important as they are, exist for a different purpose—a purpose best served by a strong and independent national body structured to give strategic coherence to their articulated needs. I want to make a plea: obviously that the CRC should exist, but also that it should be a powerful and independent voice on behalf of rural communities.
	But I have another plea. The Churches of this country, and the Church of England in particular, have the most widespread rural network of any organisation. Our churches do not exist to provide visual candy for rural brochures produced by RDAs or regional government offices; they exist because they play a profound role in rural society. I could give many examples of nursery groups operating in village churches, after-school clubs and hospital car services—there are countless examples of the way in which the Churches, including Church schools, contribute profoundly and willingly to rural living. They are major stakeholders and contribute so much to the social capital so vital to a strong and sustainable rural life.
	I look for a broad-based Commission for Rural Communities representative of the key stakeholders in rural life. I also look for a reassurance that the Government and bodies such as the CRC, when set up, will listen to the voices of all those organisations which constitute civil society—among them the voluntary sector and the rural Church—when strategies are devised. Again I speak from my own experience of partnership working and local area agreements when I say how easily and frequently the representatives of the voluntary and community sectors, and of the private and business sectors, are driven from the table when representatives of local and national government are there in too large numbers.
	The concluding speech on this Bill in the other place ended with this rhetorical flourish:
	"The context of the Bill is the vision of rural England . . . at whose heart is the pursuit of sustainable development, so that social, economic and environmental issues are taken into account in the shaping of policy".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/05; col. 257.]
	It is a vision, but it will come to fruition only if the voices of the rural communities and those who work for them, including the Churches, are really heard.
	The General Synod yesterday passed a motion calling on the Church of England to reassess the adequacy of its own support at a national level for the future of rural England. I hope that this Committee will do no less. The Commission for Rural Communities, properly constituted, can be a good opportunity to ensure that that happens. Let us have it; let it flourish; let it stand as part of the Bill.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: This is a large group of amendments which go to the kernel of the Bill, so I apologise in advance for the length of my intervention. I have four amendments to speak to in the group—and I shall come to those—but first I wish to deal with the stand part debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. In doing so, I shall speak to all the other amendments in the group that she has tabled in regard to Part 2.
	I believe most strongly that we need the CRC. The problems of rural life still go unnoticed and unheeded by a large number of policy makers, whether they be in Whitehall—including Defra, perhaps—certainly the RDAs and even county halls. In several local authorities which have an urban kernel and a doughnut of rural area around them, a great deal of policy making is focused on the urban centre and the rural doughnut gets ignored. It is important to have rural-proofing and an eye must be kept on some of the county halls—the local authorities in general—as well.
	Secondly, there is huge ignorance about the countryside, especially the problems of deprivation, the need for businesses and the lack of thought given to both the rural young and rural old. We need to keep driving up standards of delivery. These are national not local standards of rural delivery, involving the police, the ambulance service, social services, business links, the skills agenda, and so on. A body that is looking at the delivery of services to rural areas will be more important now, as I said on Second Reading, with all the change taking place in the police force, the Department of Health and education. The tendency is that the police, business links and other services should be regionalised—in other words, that they should get further and further away from the man in the country lane, if not the man in the street. It is important to have an organisation standing up for those people.
	Rather than calling for the abandonment of the proposals for the CRC, I say we strengthen its remit and its ability to be effective. I hope that the amendments, which I shall come to shortly, will achieve that. There is no doubt that the rural social agenda needs a strong voice in today's national and regional politics and I have yet to hear of a better suggestion than the CRC. We need a national body. It cannot be Defra—it has to be independent, with the ability to criticise all parts of government. No civil servant from Defra will put his career on the line by criticising other departments. It just will not happen in the Civil Service. We need an independent voice that can be a critical friend of government but which can do the authoritative research on a national basis and then use it on a national scale to goad and prod all levels of government. If you care about the lives of the poor, the young, the old and the deprived people in rural England, you need a CRC.
	Being quite new here, and a learner driver when it comes to Bill amendments, I realise that I probably do not have the wording of Amendment No. 225 quite right. Nevertheless, I believe that the principles still hold good. It is crucial that the voice of the countryside—or rural England, in this case—is heard loud and clear throughout all levels of government. I have been trying to achieve this for the whole of my political career, the past 20 or so years.
	The major breakthrough in this agenda was when we managed to get the concept of rural-proofing introduced into the rural White Paper in November 2000. If one is trying to raise the quality of life in rural areas, one should probably start at the Department of Health or perhaps the Department for Education and Skills; it was not in those days MAFF and it is not necessarily Defra now. I never cease to be amazed at the level of ignorance about rural living among most officials outside Defra and sometimes, I am afraid, within it. In my time, I came across a whole range of unrecognised issues. For instance, there is the problem of kids at school not being able to take part in sport, drama or music because there is not a second car in their family and they have to get the school bus back home at 3.30 because the family car—every family, virtually, has to have one—has been taken to work. DCMS officials were unaware that any promotion of sports had to take this into consideration in the countryside.
	There is the problem of rural youngsters who cannot take part in training or get a job because they have no transport. That would be dealt with very simply by a Wheels to Work scheme but I cannot get the DWP to pick up on that idea, even now. What about rural businesses, which struggle to get recognition of their needs? I was asked by one DTI official, "What does manufacturing have to do with the countryside?". "Actually, there are more manufacturing businesses per head in the countryside than in the towns; did you not know that?", I asked. "Oh, no," was the reply.
	There is also the problem of how rural participants will take part in the proceedings of magistrates courts when those courts get fewer and more inaccessible. I once jokingly remarked that stealing a car might be the only option. All those are examples not only of ignorance but of lack of thought about rural issues, the main problem being a lack of recognition that the countryside is not just a picture postcard existence, but that real deprivation exists and solutions to it are inevitably different from those used in the towns.
	I do not want to go into all the rural social problems, but there is no doubt that in order to get central, regional and even local government to make the effort to take account of the rural dimension, there has to be someone with clout. That clout must come from someone at the very top of government who can break down doors and demand responses from the top of Whitehall departments to the RDAs, local authorities and leaders of government agencies whose staff, one hopes, are working on the ground in rural areas but all too often restricting their efforts to the towns.
	As I said, the clout or authority for this advocate for rural life has to come from the top. With no disrespect to our current Defra Secretary of State, other Whitehall departments, Ministers and other Secretaries of State tend to resent interference in their way of doing things from merely another department. But if that authority came from Downing Street they would have to wake up and listen. Some officials involved in these changes have been reluctant to accept the need for a rural advocate. Such a person might create waves, which the Sir Humphreys of this world might abhor. But that is precisely what is needed—now more than ever before. Defra might be worried that a rural advocate with authority emanating from Downing Street rather than from its own Secretary of State might even feel empowered to criticise Defra. With the Government dictating change and with all the delivery organisations, it is vital that we have a rural advocate in there behind the scenes—very often, it is best to achieve things by working behind the scenes—fighting the rural corner.
	The Commission for Rural Communities will be doing the research and will have the expertise to make a national case for people living in rural areas, covering all aspects of rural life—health, education, transport and so forth. It must also have a secret weapon with the strength or clout to get in there and make a difference—an Exocet, as it were. It must have the Government's, not just Defra's, rural advocate at its head.
	I apologise for going on, but this grouping is very long and I now turn to my Amendments Nos. 242, 247 and 255, which relate to rural-proofing. I realise that to many people the phrase in the current Clause 18(1) about the general purposes of the CRC being to promote,
	"awareness among relevant persons and the public of rural needs",
	might be synonymous with rural-proofing, but it most definitely is not. As we have described in our Amendment No. 247,
	"'rural proofing' means the systematic",
	which I emphasise,
	"assessment of rural needs and circumstances in order that they may be taken into account . . . in policy development and",
	more importantly, in the implementation of policy.
	Again, it is a typical cautious Whitehall approach. Creating "awareness among relevant persons" is all very well, but do not create waves. That is tantamount to saying, "Do not make a difference". What is needed is for the CRC to be able to go to a department. Let us take the Home Office, which in my day tended to be one that needed telling—I am sure that is different now and I apologise in advance if I am being unfair to it. But you need to be able to say to a department, "Have you got the systems in place to properly monitor the effects of all your policies and initiatives in rural areas—not just one or two policies, which you as an official who might live in London might think could be relevant to the countryside, but all your policies, because, believe me, they are pretty well all relevant? Who is checking the effects of what your police reforms will mean for rural communities? Who will check on asylum centres?", which might easily be put in rural areas. What effect might they have as a drain on local medical or educational services if they are placed in rural areas? You need to say, "That initiative that you have got going fighting the drug culture among the young—what are you doing to make it reach out to the rural young? Do you not know that in some rural communities there are more drugs per head of population among the young than in some of the worst London boroughs?", et cetera, et cetera.
	It is all very well to create awareness among these solid citizens in Whitehall—and again I apologise to the Home Office for using it as an example, as this could apply to any of the departments—but ultimately the CRC must have the ability to provoke action and to name and shame a department, an RDA or a government agency in a report to Parliament. That is why our final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 255, inserts as Clause 19(d) a provision about,
	"monitoring and making reports to Parliament on rural-proofing".
	Noble Lords might have gathered, not only from my Second Reading speech but from what I have said today, that I am passionate about the need for the CRC, but I admit to a small degree of sympathy with some of the voices from the opposite Benches that are in effect saying, "Where's the beef?". Is the CRC going to make a difference? I would not like to say that our amendments necessarily constitute the hamburger between the white flour of the Government's buns, but my hope is that they will at least give the CRC some crunch.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I remind Members of the Committee of the interests that I declared last week, in our debate on Wednesday, as chairman of the South Downs Joint Committee, which is a bringing together of the Countryside Agency locally, the Sussex Downs AONB and the East Hampshire AONB.
	I have listened very carefully to the passionate remarks in favour of the CRC made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who speaks with a great deal of experience, having been chairman of the Countryside Agency. I find myself with something of a paradox when thinking about the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has initiated. Of course, there is the instinct in me that, when the disappearance of the Countryside Agency was announced—that is, its merging with English Nature and the Rural Development Service of Defra—I assumed that there would be just one new body. That was very much the purpose behind the report prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—and I am sorry that he cannot be with us today. But what confused and amazed him was the number of different sources within Defra that put subsidy and money into the countryside. I think that he said there were something like 80 different ways in which a farmer or rural community might get money from Defra, either directly or through the Countryside Agency. He thought, rightly, that this was nonsense and far too complex. He made the comment, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will remember, that in some cases the Countryside Agency spent more money on administering the grant to the rural community than the value of the grant itself.
	There must be an instinct in some of us who have the privilege of living in the countryside, and to some extent working in it, of wondering whether the CRC is necessary. Would it not be better to merge its functions with Natural England? Would that not save some government money, which could go to the farming community instead? Let us imagine that I went round some of the small farmers in the lucky part of England where I live, who are so worried at the moment about low cereal prices; about what is going to happen when their single farm payment is reduced, as it is likely to be over the next seven years; and about whether, to go back to the point that we discussed at Question Time yesterday, there is going to be enough money from Pillar 2 of the CAP for all the green farming initiatives that they are being encouraged to take up. If I told them not to worry, because the Government are starting a Commission for Rural Communities, whose purpose is to do just the things that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has described—to rural-proof and create awareness among relevant persons in the public of rural needs—they would laugh. They would say, "Big deal. What on earth is that going to do for us? We want to know what price we are going to get for our crop in two or three years' time. We want to know what the CRC is going to do for us, if the CAP is reformed"—as we are all pressing for—"when we are totally dependent on the EU subsidy that we get to be profitable". We have to face that fact.
	There is a danger at the moment—and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has a rather charming tendency towards this—of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. That would actually be very good green farming policy, if one could do it. Life ahead for farmers is difficult, and will get worse before it gets better. There has to be a total rethink among small farmers in this country over what they will grow, how they will market it, and how at the end of the day they will make a profit that might keep their family in the farm rather than going off to do something else. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who was a devoted chairman of the Countryside Agency, and worked hard on it, what he thinks this new body will do that the Countryside Agency did not. Why will the new body be better?
	That is the argument against. On the other hand, there is the definite thought that, as the right reverend Prelate put it—more eloquently than I am doing—we live on a very small island. Those who live in rural areas are very close to those in urban centres, but the needs of rural communities, particularly of the rural disadvantaged, are very different because of rural isolation and changes in demography, apart from the monetary facts I have just cited. At the same time we fully understand now how the quality of life of those who live in urban areas and the state of the economy are so dependent on the quality of the countryside and the communities nearby. There is a tremendous inter-mix between the two.
	I must not go on. This debate is not Second Reading; it is specifically about leaving out a clause. I would be interested, when the noble Lord, Lord Bach, answers, to have his views briefly on the points that have been made, and particularly on what the new CRC's budget will be. How much money will it have, and how much will it spend? Is it not at least questionable that that money could be better spent in a more direct way in helping, for example, the farming community?

Earl Peel: If we are to have a CRC, it must be totally independent. That is the key. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, was right to point out that the commission's advocacy role was compromised by its more high profile responsibility as a service provider. In some ways, that answers the question raised by my noble friend Lord Renton.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has raised some fundamental and important issues through her amendment. Having given this matter considerable thought, however, I am very much in favour of the formation of the CRC. I understand the points she makes. Of course it is the responsibility of local democratically elected bodies, whether they be in Parliament or in local government, to ensure that rural areas are properly serviced. But the crucial role of the CRC will be in making statistics available to those elected bodies; plus the fact that the desired role of the chairman is to ensure that the information is made available to the Government at top level, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has expressed, is essential.
	I do not believe that I misrepresent the right reverend Prelate when I say that he cast doubt on the ability of the RDAs to carry out their rural dimensions as effectively as we would like. I think that that is happening in practice. It is another good reason why we need this independent voice. The reason I feel so strongly about this is that the countryside is going through such a fundamental change. There will be enormous social implications for the revolution taking place; it is therefore essential that we have an independent body to draw attention to these changes and to advise the Government on what needs to be done.
	Amendment No. 255, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, proposes that the CRC should have equal regard to the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this but I suspect that ambition may be somewhat optimistic and that in practice the CRC will find itself concentrating pretty exclusively on the economic and social responsibilities, of which there are plenty, as I have already implied. I wonder whether it can be all things to all three pillars, for want of a better expression. As I say, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view. After all, the new body, Natural England, will have the primary role of promoting the environmental dimension of the countryside. The fact that the Government appear so reluctant to give Natural England a duty to have regard to the social and economic side of life makes those dimensions of the CRC's position that much more important.
	However, I am entirely behind the sentiment of all these amendments. I suspect that they are unnecessary and that they are principally probing amendments to try to get the Minister to give assurances that all we want out of the CRC will be provided. However, I would be interested to hear whether he feels that it could and should have an environmental dimension or whether it should concentrate primarily on the economic and social aspects of the countryside.

Lord Grantchester: I support Amendments Nos. 242 and 255 and underline the arguments already made that Clause 17 should stand part of the Bill. The problems of our rural areas are underlined almost daily in your Lordships' House with questions on subjects ranging from the common agricultural policy to rural development such as rural broadband, rural housing and the environment. There is most definitely a need for an independent rural advocate, the CRC—whose position would carry huge weight across Whitehall in the centre and the regional development agencies—with strategic responsibilities, as proposed in Amendment No. 255, regarding the three pillars,
	"the social, economic and environmental state of rural England".

Lord Judd: I hope that my noble friend will consider that Amendment No. 244 helps the Government by putting some muscle behind the extremely admirable intention of their proposal.
	I will not bore the Committee by repeating my interests, as I have expressed them before, but I shall spell out a rather different interest that I think I should declare. I am completely the product of an urban existence, but 12 years ago I was one of those who made their home extremely happily in a very rural area. One of the hidden problems that we are dealing with all the time in policy-making in this area is the increasing number of highly articulate, sophisticated, professional people living in the countryside interpreting the needs of the countryside from an urban background. It is essential for the CRC to exist to understand the people and the communities who are rooted in the countryside and what their needs are.
	I make two points to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. First, I agree with her about the importance of local government. That is a traditionally Liberal point of view but it is an objective which I share. If we take democracy seriously, local government is tremendously important. I do not see the two bodies as competing. If the CRC works well, it will strengthen the role of local government through understanding what local authorities in rural areas are trying to do, understanding their problems, bringing those together and speaking out.
	Secondly, since I have made my home in the countryside I have been repeatedly struck by how we sometimes look at housing, health, employment and transport as specific issues in their own right. They interplay with each other, and it seems to me that the CRC in doing its job will be able to bring those different elements together and make strong representations to government about the holistic need of the countryside. That is also a good Liberal principle, and I hope that the noble Baroness might take it seriously. There should be a holistic approach rather than a segmented one. I ask the noble Baroness to think again about her idea of having a whole host of specific individual commissions or specialist committees reporting on particular issues. That would not help; it would complicate the task rather than help to overcome the difficulties.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall make a brief intervention of a rather paradoxical nature. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and I both spoke in the debate on the rural economy on Thursday last week. Although I have rural connections, I was for many years an inner city London MP.
	I remember vividly the Committee stage in the House of Commons on the Greater London Authority Bill. I say that because we were dealing with the problems of London as a microcosm of great cities throughout the country on the issue of a strategic authority. The Committee consisted of 29 Members of Parliament. The Minister's PPS was a Member for Aberdeen, and the Tory Whip had been the chairman of a West Midlands regional authority. The other 27 Members were all London Members, and they therefore spoke with considerable authority both for the centre of the city and the suburbs. What struck me about that Committee stage with that degree of expert opinion was the number of issues—despite the fact that London had had a strategic authority from 1889 to 1986 and therefore was not unfamiliar with the issues—that individual members brought up where circumstances overlapped, in rather the way that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was describing.
	On each occasion the Minister, Mr Raynsford, assisted by Miss Glenda Jackson, would quietly turn down the issues that we brought up out of our own experience where the various tectonic plates met. Then in the later stage in the House of Commons, and certainly much more in the House of Lords, the Government accepted a whole series of amendments that we had moved in the Commons. Civil servants from different departments, having been sent away to investigate whether there was anything in what we had said, clearly reported to Ministers that there was. Therefore, I am highly sympathetic to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that you must have some means by which government departments across Whitehall are asked to look at rural issues in a unique way.

Lord Nickson: I hesitate to speak because I was not able to be present or take part at Second Reading. I will be extremely brief. I strongly support the amendments, from my personal experience. I am also hesitant because my experience is mostly in Scotland and therefore does not apply to this Bill. I was chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland and later chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, now Scottish Enterprise, so that I had, as it were, at one time one foot in the country and another in industry in the cities. Later still, I chaired a body that had direct access to the Prime Minister, and I totally support the fact that that access and that independence are fundamental. The issues facing the countryside in England and in Scotland at the moment are so great that this commission, with the independence proposed, is absolutely vital. I support the amendment.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I feel that I should respond to certain questions put to me. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

Noble Lords: Order.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I have instructions in front of me that say that I am allowed to speak.

Lord Carter: We are in Committee. It is perfectly in order.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked me what the CRC would add compared with the Countryside Agency. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned and as was referred to in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, we dealt with the delivery of functions as well as having advisory functions, and those delivery functions will no longer be applicable. So the CRC will be much more focused. He then spoke about farmers in the countryside and the difference that it would make to them. I am afraid that farmers represent less than 5 per cent of the rural population and less than 1 per cent of the whole population, so it is the other 95 per cent of the rural population in which we are mostly interested in terms of the CRC. That is not to say that farmers are not important in their own right.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, mentioned that the CRC may have problems in dealing with the environment across the board. The Countryside Agency currently produces a state-of-the-countryside report, which includes a chapter on the environment. It merely draws in information, which will probably come from Natural England as much as anywhere else, and produces it in a comprehensive form. The purpose of the amendment that relates to that is that it should be a presentation to Parliament as opposed to the general public.
	The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also mentioned that the CRC would work in partnership with the local authorities. That is true. When I chaired the Countryside Agency, I was perpetually strengthening the hand of the Rural Commission of the LGA and worked very closely with it, so that is absolutely correct.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I did not mention my other amendments in this group during my speech on whether the clause should stand part, partly because my remarks follow on from what has just been said.
	Amendment No. 252 suggests that the CRC should be in at the development stage of policy and not just the monitoring and implementing stages, which would be rather shutting the door after the horse had bolted. So, although I do not yet want to admit that the CRC will exist, if it is to exist, it should be in at the policy development stage, ensuring that consultation happens.
	In Amendments Nos. 246 and 248, I simply suggest that specifying "social and economic" needs draws the brief too tightly. For example, I would ask the right reverend Prelate about including the word "spiritual", or perhaps he considers that that is encompassed in "social". But, if the CRC is to exist, I should prefer it to be drawn as widely as possible.

Baroness Byford: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Because we are working slightly in reverse and some of us have not had a chance to move our amendments yet, it may be as well to reflect a little on some of the contributions that have been made and how I see them applying to our amendments, but I will speak directly to my amendments as well.
	In speaking to her opposition to the Question whether the clause should stand part, the noble Baroness rightly said that in Committee in another place my two colleagues voted with the Liberal Democrats against the setting up of the Commission for Rural Communities. I think that they were extremely concerned about whether the commission would be yet another high-level talking shop. From some of the comments that have been expressed this afternoon, I suspect that, if we are honest, that is a view we all share, and I should like to come back to it.
	I declare my interests, which are totally opposite to those of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I call myself a country lass. I live in the village in which I was born—sadly, in some ways it has become a big village. It does not really matter where we come from; we are all keenly aware of the needs of rural communities. I also remind noble Lords of my family farming interest in Suffolk and of my association with the RSIN, the RABI, the RASE, the Addington Fund and, not proudly but certainly not least, my work and involvement with the Church. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter rightly touched on the role that Churches have to play in our communities. When going round rural areas one notices enormous changes, such as the loss of shops, pubs and post offices, but the one thing that tends still to be there—fortunately—is the church of whatever denomination. That is enormously important.
	At Second Reading, as noble Lords will remember if they look back at col. 402, I said:
	"We have steadily questioned the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities, not that we do not believe or know that there is a need for a rural advocate, because indeed there is, but because . . . this is yet another high-level body responsible for talking".—[Official Report, 7/11/05; col. 402.].
	Since then we have had a chance to talk to many Peers and people outside, and we wish to support the establishment of the Commission for Rural Communities. But, in doing so, we want to make sure that it is much stronger than the Government had in mind in the first place. While some noble Lords will be pleased to hear me say that, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to it as a watchdog. When will it bark and when will it bite? We need both to go with it.
	We have reached an important part of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, rightly raised the interesting concept of the Government's reaction to the need for having better affordable housing in country areas; they did not use the present system that they could have used, but set up a special commission to look at affordable housing. Once the body exists, will that be the end of extra bodies being set up to do the work that this new body should do if it works in the way that we anticipate?
	The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained clearly his commitment to the rural commission and how he was a former rural advocate—a distinguished one, if I may say so. Even he would admit that there were things that he wanted to achieve that he could not achieve. The reports from various departments on rural-proofing, in particular, show that the levels achieved were not satisfactory. The question for the new commission is how to improve things. The figures are there to see. The Minister is new to his role in Defra, but that department's record is nothing to be proud of either, which is worrying.
	I am pleased to support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and to ask how to strengthen the Bill, not just to ensure that the door of No. 10 is open or that people will nod and say, "We hear you". We realise that there is a problem in the countryside and that in many cases it is a hidden problem. There is affluence—I do not mean that in an over-the-top sense, but there is some wealth in the countryside. There is no doubt about that, but, sadly, at the other end, there is extreme poverty, which is often hidden. That is made all the more difficult because people are remote and have no one to turn to. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that we should name and shame, and yes we should. But what more can the commission do? I think that it should be able to do more.
	I am sorry that I was unable to be here to take part in the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Renton yesterday, when he rightly raised the issue of the future and the pressure on farming and farming communities. Natural England will have the responsibility for making these payments, but will the Commission for Rural Communities have an overriding role in trying to get that body to better understand and carry more clout about how some of those payments may be made in future? I can see the two bodies not necessarily rowing in the same way. That is an important issue. My noble friend Lord Renton said that there was extreme pressure on farmers and the farming community. He is quite right. I foresee this going on probably for three or four years. Interestingly, the ARC-Addington Fund has had more applications within the first few months of this year than since the foot and mouth outbreak. There is a real concern out there.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter mentioned the role of the Churches. I was delighted to see yesterday that the Synod was 100 per cent behind the role that rural churches can play and which some of them have already adopted—some have small post offices in them. There are real ways in which churches could be used more fully. I am delighted to support that.
	My real role, however, is to speak to my amendments. In responding to the amendments of others, I hope that I will not have to do it again except to hear what the Minister has to say. On Amendment No. 245, the inclusion in the Bill of the words "social and economic" implies that other words are excluded. The word "economic" covers issues such as rural post offices and the threat to end the Post Office card accounts system—which is due to happen in 2008 and could well make greater difficulties for people living in rural areas—agricultural diversification, tourism and other ways in which people living in rural areas earn their living. Does it cover things like the cost of obtaining an identity card, which cannot then be used—with pensions, for example—as all communications have to be over the phone because there is often no transport available to the post office? There are many questions over the words "social and economic".
	My understanding is that "social" is also slightly difficult to define in this context. Will it cover, for example, the provision of schooling? There is, for instance, an assumption that, for too many school places, rural children will be required to travel many miles through rural villages to go into the towns. Would it not be sensible, and maybe less costly, to think of bussing some of those town children out to village schools, to ensure that village schools are able to continue? Will the rural commission's voice be heard in that discussion?
	How about healthcare? Will the rural commission influence the organisation of prescription renewal services, which are causing considerable difficulties in some areas? Will the rural commission have a voice in representing constituents who find that the shake-up of the PCTs condemns them to attending outpatient departments in hospitals to which there are no direct transport links? Is it the Government's intention that the rural commission be heard in all these circumstances? The removal of the "social and economic" qualification makes sense and would obviate the possibility of lengthy squabbles over what is, and is not, included in the definition.
	Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 250 and 253 address the same issue: questioning the Government on the purposes of the CRC. The first description of the CRC's general purpose, Clause 18(1), states that it will have a statutory duty to meet,
	"rural needs in ways that contribute to sustainable development".
	It goes on, and "rural needs" comes up again and again; it seems to be the main defining motivation for the CRC. But how will those rural needs be defined? If the only definition of "rural needs" is the description in Clause 18(3)—
	"the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas"—
	I wonder if that is sufficient.
	We can clearly see from this that the CRC is meant to be a body that will, in some ways, be complementary to Natural England, which will have regard to the environment—that was touched on earlier. For now, the definition of "persons in rural areas" leaves me—and I suggest others—somewhat flummoxed. There are people who live full time in rural areas, such as farmers, gamekeepers, foresters, agricultural labourers, people who keep pubs, and shopkeepers. The list goes on and it is extensive and varied. However, there is a strong distinction between people who live in rural areas and people who visit rural areas. While I would in no way wish to discourage visitors to rural areas—because, very often, rural areas are totally dependent on visitors to survive—we wonder whether the intention in the Bill, as it is laid, is to refer to people who are in rural areas rather than to people who are living and working in them.
	Amendment No. 253 does not touch on the matter of definitions specifically, but it asks a question that my honourable friends in another place raised: how critical will the CRC be of itself when it puts together a report about the way in which policies are adopted? It is all very well for it to state that it is meeting certain aspects of the policy, but there is no obligation on it to report the extent of success or failure. I am not suggesting that the CRC should continually be looking over its shoulder, but it should be very critical of its brief and how it achieves it.
	Amendment No. 251 is a probing amendment. Clause 22 allows the Commission for Rural Communities to charge for its services and Clause 21 specifies that it may publish and supply information. However, Clause 19 concerns aspects of the CRC's duties that many of us consider to be the only plausible reason for its existence. It must be a champion for the countryside. It must spend time, effort and money working with organisations that exist to protect, preserve and present the value of the countryside, the landscape and the rural way of life. Above all, it must represent rural values to government; it must inform and help decision-makers with the steps to be taken to ensure the continuation of those values. To do that, we believe that the Commission for Rural Communities has to have open access to decision-makers and opinion-formers. It is our belief that it will not achieve that if it is constrained to charge for services, as is suggested in the Bill.
	Like other noble Lords, I am not surprised that so many noble Lords want to speak in this debate because, if we want the Commission for Rural Communities to fulfil an important role, we must get it right.

Lord Bach: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. This has been as good a debate as one could have expected on this subject, which is at the heart of the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. Whatever view noble Lords took on the issue, we are all extremely grateful for what they have had to say. There have been intelligent and sensible arguments from noble Lords who know what they are talking about.
	I am delighted that the preponderance of views was in favour of the establishment of the CRC. That is the Government's policy and we want to see it happen. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for putting her party's views on this issue. She may think that I am about to criticise her party for having changed its mind, but that is the very last thing that I am going to do. Her party has come to a sensible view after much reflection and thought. Indeed, I take her point about wanting a stronger CRC. I thank her for her support for the CRC.
	I was particularly struck, as I think we all were, by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter. He spoke with great knowledge and experience. Indeed, I may accuse him of having had a trial run yesterday at the Synod. I do not know whether the response he gets today will be better or worse than the one he got in Church House yesterday, but I thank him very much for what he had to say. His diocese is of course very rural in many parts.
	I shall be as brief as I can. I am very grateful—I think I owe some thanks to my noble friend Lord Carter for this—that all noble Lords have agreed to this vast grouping, as opposed to having a debate just on Clause 17 and then debates on a whole series of individual amendments. I think we have saved the Committee some time. Before I start, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because without her opposition to clause stand part, we would not have had the debate in this way.
	Clause 17 establishes the Commission for Rural Communities as an independent non-departmental public body. Its general purposes and functions are set out in subsequent clauses. We have amendments to those clauses. The body's statutory status will enable it to perform its role independently and impartially. The clause also introduces Schedule 2, which sets out the constitution of the CRC, including provisions about its status, its membership, its chief executive and other employees, pay and pensions, procedure and accounts and annual reports. Indeed, the group of amendments dealing with some of those issues immediately follows this debate.
	Noble Lords will have noticed that these arrangements are almost identical to those for Natural England, which are set out in Schedule 1. We believe that the CRC will be a strong, independent, rural advocate, adviser and watchdog to help ensure that the Government's policies make a real difference to people in rural areas. It will pay special attention to tackling social disadvantage, of which we have heard much from all sides this afternoon, and to rural areas which experience economic underperformance. It will not be the Countryside Agency by another name; far from it. The CRC will be a much smaller body and, crucially, without delivery functions. It will focus exclusively on issues affecting rural communities, rather than on the broad landscape, conservation and community remit of the Countryside Agency. Of course rural-proofing will be at the heart of the CRC's role and will help Defra and government generally to ensure that all government polices are rural-proofed.
	The process by which the potential impact of policy and decision-making on rural areas is evaluated taking the needs of those who live and work in the countryside into account is not a bad definition of rural-proofing. The purpose is to make sure that the needs of rural areas are not sidelined in the thickets of Whitehall, and, indeed, that they are reflected at the heart of all policy making. The CRC will also promote rural-proofing across the wider public sector—for example, in the RDAs and in local government. It will report annually to the Secretary of State on how the policies of government departments and government offices of the regions have been rural-proofed.
	So, in that way alone, the CRC will play a vital role in ensuring that other bodies' policies truly address the needs of rural communities. Arguments on the other side suggest that the CRC's powers and responsibilities should belong to local authorities. Indubitably, local authorities play a vital role in rural service provision. We have sought to enhance that—for example, by setting up rural delivery pathfinders in each region, led by local authorities, to focus on innovative ways of delivering services. But the CRC, in acting as an advocate for rural communities, will seek to establish a national position that, frankly, would by definition be beyond that of any individual local authority, however outstanding.
	The CRC, unlike local authorities, will have a single-minded focus on and expertise in rural matters. Unlike local authorities, the CRC will not be encumbered or distracted by delivery roles, which is part of the role of the local authority, which means that it will be free to provide a powerful and impartial challenge to central, regional and local government. The arguments against local authorities trying to do what the CRC will do are, I hope, clear, but, notwithstanding that, the CRC will need to keep in close touch with local government and vice versa.
	There are those who would argue that the Government are ignoring the report of my noble friend Lord Haskins through the fact of setting up the CRC. In his November 2003 report on rural delivery, he recommended that the functions of the Countryside Agency should be transferred to appropriate specialist organisations. We claim that we have acted on that. We have passed policy development and lead responsibility for rural-proofing to Defra. We have passed the resources formerly devoted to the Countryside Agency for social and economic programmes to the regional development agencies. I listened with interest to the warning from the right reverend Prelate about that. We have given government offices for the regions the lead in supporting the rural voluntary and community sector. We are passing the Countryside Agency's environmental, landscape, access and recreational programmes to the new integrated agency, which is Natural England.
	In other words, all the Countryside Agency's functions are being transferred, just as my noble friend recommended. In meeting those recommendations, however, we have recognised the need for a much smaller body to advise on issues of policy as it affects rural people. To cite the Secretary of State's response to the Haskins report:
	"There will be a continued need for a much smaller organisation, with a new, well focused role providing independent policy advice to Government from a national perspective on issues affecting people in rural communities, and analysing and reporting on best practice in the delivery of the Government's rural policies. We also need to build on experience so far on rural proofing and embedding rural objectives in all relevant aspects of government policy".
	Those words explain the basic thinking behind the need for that organisation.
	I bring the point about the Haskins review to a close by reminding the Committee of the quotation mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carter when Lord Haskins spoke to the EFRA Committee on 9 November 2004. The revised Countryside Agency is, of course, the CRC, which is that same smaller, more focused body referred to by the Secretary of State in her response, which I just cited. Establishing the CRC to take and build on the agency's advisory, advocacy and watchdog functions is a positive measure that will address the needs of rural communities and people who live and work in them.
	However, we were rightly reminded that it is easy to praise the idea of the CRC; the real test is how effective it is. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, was important in that regard. He accused me of occasionally making silk out of sows' ears.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: A silk purse.

Lord Bach: A silk purse out of a sow's ear. I took that as a compliment and return it to him on this occasion, because he put the case against the CRC as well as it can be put, but no better than that.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I thank the Minister for his most kind comments. I hope that he will answer this before he moves on, but I just remind him that I asked him what he expected the budget of the Commission for Rural Communities to be. I think that he told us last week that the probable budget for Natural England will be about £300 million a year. Does he have a figure for the CRC?

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of his question. He will not be surprised to hear that discussion on the scale of the budget for the tasks envisaged will have to form part of the normal planning process, which will take place between the commission and Defra. The budget will be commensurate with the duties placed on it. The CRC in its shadow form this year has a budget of £7.8 million. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that that is likely to rise in the next number of years as the CRC gets to work, but frankly budget figures for the future have not yet been recognised.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps, following my noble friend's question, the Minister will tell us whether the Government have determined its location in a lagging rural community.

Lord Bach: I think that we have cut down the possible locations for the CRC to a fairly small number, but I am not in a position to tell the Committee that one particular location has yet been decided on. So I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question.

Baroness Byford: That, too, will affect the cost, because the figure that was given to my noble friend probably does not include where the venue will eventually be.

Lord Bach: Of course that will affect the cost. That is why I did not try to tell the noble Lord what the costs are; they will depend on which particular location is chosen. The location has not yet been chosen.
	The noble Lord asked why we did not simply merge the CRC with Natural England. That question is worthy of a response. We believe it would prevent us achieving the very conditions for establishing the CRC that are essential for its success. The rationale for having the body focus on economic and social rural disadvantage was set out in the 2004 rural strategy, which built on the rural advocate established by the 2000 White Paper and which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the Countryside Agency successfully undertook.
	The rural strategy explained the need for a small refocused organisation to provide strong and impartial advice to government on economic and social issues affecting rural communities, but it needed to be divorced from any delivery functions—no one has really denied that that is important—that could distract it from impartially monitoring the delivery of services in rural areas and from being an advocate for rural people. Indeed, one of the roles of the CRC will be to monitor the delivery performance of Natural England itself. We believe that it can do that better as a separate and independent body.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I do not want to pursue the matter any further at the moment, but once it has been decided where the CRC is to be, as my noble friend on the Front Bench asked, and once it is set up, will it be possible for the Minister to write and tell us what the likely budget figure is for the first full year?

Lord Bach: It certainly will be, and I shall make sure that that is done at the earliest possible opportunity.
	I shall now deal with the amendments as briefly as I can. Amendment No. 225, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, among others, seeks to make statutory the role of rural advocate by combining it formally with the position of chairman of the CRC board. Let me begin by clarifying that the current chairman of the Countryside Agency and the rural advocate are, as is well known to the Committee, already the same person—Dr Stuart Burgess—who has been referred to in the debate. Dr Burgess was appointed chairman by the Secretary of State and subsequently designated rural advocate by the Prime Minister in 2004.
	The arrangement derives from the 2000 rural White Paper, which announced the creation of the role of rural advocate to,
	"argue the case on countryside issues and for rural people at the highest levels in Government and outside".
	The role was to be a designation, not an appointment. Although it has seemed eminently sensible to us to link it to the chairman post—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, if he will forgive me saying so, was the first person to whom the designation was given—we believe this is better done by custom and practice than by force of law.
	The report on our draft Bill, published in March last year, by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in another place emphasised that this role is vital and welcomed our assurance that it was likely that the chairman of the CRC would be designated the rural advocate. In our response we stated that the CRC would provide substantial back-up to the rural advocate in what will undoubtedly be a pretty challenging role. We do not believe it necessary to add the designation to the specification for the chairman in Schedule 2, in that, unlike with the Countryside Agency, the concept of rural advocacy is built into the general purposes and powers of the CRC in Clauses 18 and 19 of this Bill.
	The ability of the rural advocate to carry out his responsibilities has not been restricted by not having statutory backing. He already enjoys access to the Government and to Parliament, to the whole range of local, regional and national bodies concerned with rural affairs, and obviously to rural people themselves. Access to the Prime Minister is built into the description of the chairman's role. At present we are not convinced that the chairman of the CRC should be given any special functions over and above the wide remit and functions already set out in Chapter 2. That is our response at this stage to the noble Lord's amendment.
	I shall take Amendments Nos. 241, 251 and 252 together. This group seeks to alter how the purpose and roles of the CRC are described in Clauses 18 and 19. Amendment No. 241 would formalise the CRC's monitoring role in a way which is not spelt out elsewhere in the Bill. It would raise the CRC's information and advisory roles to a more prominent position as one of two elements of its general purpose. Crucially, it would also remove the requirement for the CRC to promote sustainability in meeting rural needs. Sustainable rural communities are of course one of our main aims, as well as one of the main aims of the CRC and other bodies concerned with rural communities.
	The amended Clause 18(1)(a), mentioned in Amendment No. 241, would not add anything genuinely new to the commission's purpose. Ensuring that government policies do not disadvantage persons living in rural areas is already embedded in all the CRC's monitoring and watchdog work. The revision to Clause 18(1)(b) similarly would not add anything substantially new as information collection and publication is already thoroughly embedded in the advisory function of the CRC and, we think, covered adequately in Clauses 19(b) and 20.
	Amendment No. 251, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would remove the CRC's advisory role. She told us that this is a probing amendment. The CRC will be a key source of independent expert advice to government and to other public, private and voluntary bodies on the social and economic needs of people and communities in rural areas. It has already demonstrated some of the ways in which it will exercise this function, through its thematic study on rural disadvantage and its report, the State of the Countryside 2005. The CRC's continuation of this role will be of great value to all those concerned with the facts about rural needs.
	I turn to Amendment No. 252, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. My answer to her is this: at that stage it would be too late for the CRC to monitor and report on the development of policies which would have already been adopted by relevant persons. However, I think her response to me would be that while the wording of her amendment may not be absolutely appropriate, the CRC should be looking at the development of policies as much as anything else. I shall take that back.
	Amendment No. 242 seeks to widen the commission's general purpose to include promoting awareness of rural-proofing, a definition of which would be added to Clause 18. Amendment No. 247 seeks to widen the commission's general purpose to include promoting awareness of rural-proofing, a definition of which, again, would be added to Clause 18. Amendment No. 255 seeks to impose a duty to monitor and to report to Parliament directly on rural-proofing, not through the Secretary of State as at present. This reporting duty would extend to,
	"the social, economic and environmental state of rural England".
	We do not think the amendments are necessary. The second amendment would place on the CRC a further burden of responsibility and formally require it to do something already at the heart of its role and work. Defra already supports the commission with funds to monitor and report annually on rural-proofing activities across all levels of government. Similarly, the CRC is already funded by Defra to produce an annual state-of-the-countryside report, about which we have heard. It covers, to use the wording in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron,
	"the social, economic and environmental state of rural England".
	The existing wording will empower the commission to continue to carry out these functions. That is why we do not consider the amendments necessary, although, of course, we appreciate the positive motives behind them.
	Let me deal next with Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 250, 253 and 254 together. We do not believe there is an obvious purpose to these amendments. Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 250 and 254 would redefine the focus of the CRC's work from "rural needs" to,
	"the needs of the inhabitants of rural communities".
	We are not sure that that would bring any significant benefits. Clause 18(3) contains an adequate definition of "rural needs" as,
	"the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas of England",
	which the amendments would not change or omit.
	Amendment No. 253 seeks to alter the wording of Clause 19(c). Again, we do not think it adds anything. By implication, where the commission reports on the way in which policies adopted by relevant persons have been implemented, such a report would highlight both the good and the bad. The use of the word "extent" in this clause would also render the extra words "or not meeting" superfluous.
	As to Amendments Nos. 245, 246 and 248, the role of the commission will be to focus on the social and economic needs of rural communities, focusing primarily on the disadvantaged. However, in championing those affected by social disadvantage or in areas of economic underperformance, it will enhance not weaken the relationship between rural communities and their environment.
	In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I can assure the Committee that the CRC will not be looking at social and economic needs in isolation from environmental needs. It will raise awareness of the relationships between farmers and land managers and their neighbouring rural communities, including social dependencies.
	The Bill requires the commission, Natural England and the Joint Conservation Committee all to contribute to sustainable development through the functions they each perform. The CRC is tasked with promoting sustainable ways of meeting the needs of rural people and rural areas on the basis that anything that is not sustainable is, frankly, not in their interests.

Earl Peel: Perhaps I may seek an explanation from the Minister on what he said about the CRC's environmental role. Clearly it is important that the CRC should look at the relationships between those working on the land and their economic destinies, so to speak, but am I right in assuming that the CRC will not look at the purely environmental aspects of land management? It will look at it from a socio-economic dimension, I assume.

Lord Bach: Indeed it will. The CRC will look at it also within the context of sustainable development. I think the noble Earl agrees that sustainable development is sometimes described as a stool with three legs, of which one is the environmental leg. So the CRC will not be able to put the environment to one side when considering what has and has not been done properly in relation to rural areas.
	While the commission will not be responsible for pursuing these environmental goals directly, it will need to encourage others to consider such issues in a holistic approach to developing sustainable solutions. Everyone is agreed on the dependency between a high-quality rural environment and a vibrant rural economy.
	I have spoken for quite long enough. However, I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, wants to intervene.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As this is the Committee stage, it is quite appropriate to come back.
	The Minister does not like the wording of our amendment on the rural needs of the inhabitants of rural communities, and I accept that. However, I hope that he has taken on board our reason for tabling it. The Bill refers to the rural needs of relevant persons. That could include someone who lives in the city but whose rural needs are different from those of people living and working there. I see the noble Baroness shaking her head and looking slightly puzzled. Perhaps the Minister and his team could look at that provision again; as it stands, it is about adequate, but that is all I would give it. I hope that between now and Report this provision could be looked at again. If the commission is,
	"representing rural needs to relevant persons",
	those needs will be different, as I was trying to say in the amendment.

Lord Bach: We would argue that the term "relevant persons" of course includes all those who live in the country but may also include those who do not live in the country but work there. There are probably more people than we sometimes acknowledge who live in towns and cities and go to work in the country. They must be included under any commission that is worth its while. But we will of course look at this again.
	I have finished my remarks and again thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this outstanding debate.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This has been a very informative and interesting debate, and I thank all those who have spoken. I especially thank the noble Lords, Lord Renton of Mount Harry and Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for recognising that there is a paradox and that there are some fundamental issues about how we regard representation, and so on.
	I somewhat regret not repeating the speech I made on Thursday in introducing the rural economy debate, and touching much more on the lack of housing, low seasonal wages, the irrelevance of the Government's choice agenda when it comes to rural schools, and so on. I thought that to save time I would not repeat it. But in not speaking on those issues at length, I fear that I laid myself open to two things. I have been misunderstood by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. I share his views on the RDAs, and hope that he will support my Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 when we come to them. RDAs are among the most unaccountable bodies dealing with rural areas—we agree on that.
	If I had repeated my speech, I would also have avoided being, if I may say so gently, patronised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He believes that my view is romantic.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder if I might assist the noble Baroness. I have just noticed that she referred to Amendments Nos. 254 and 255, which are grouped with this. Therefore, the debate on them and reference to them would normally come in the general debate because they are in the group.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am sorry if I got the wrong amendment numbers. I am referring to my amendments dealing with the RDAs.
	I must continue refuting some of what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. I should also like to touch on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, not when he was speaking to his own amendment—with which I have much sympathy—but when he referred to the need for the CRC.
	It might be romantic to imagine that elected representatives could represent the needs of rural areas alone, although I do not share that view. But it is also romantic, given the history—starting way back with the Rural Development Commission and going through the Countryside Agency—to imagine that this quango will change things such as the funding for pillar 2 touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his Question yesterday, the real funding for sparse areas of rural England, whether the Government will recognise the cost of sparsity, and whether they will be able to change things such as the abolition of the Post Office card account, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred.
	It will be tremendous if it does all the things mentioned, but we have seen years when even direct access to the Prime Minister has meant little change in rural areas. Indeed, I submit that we have seen the closure of rural post offices, fewer police in rural areas—I could go on, but I do not need to because all noble Lords in this Chamber know the problems very well. The problems stay the same or get worse; they do not improve as a result of quangos.
	I recognise that I have lost this argument. I therefore look forward to debating the membership of the CRC, which is another critical issue. I accept that it will exist. In closing this debate, I must say that I am sorry to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that she cannot support my stance on this, given that her leader, David Cameron, launched his democracy task force yesterday. The timing is unfortunate in that she cannot support my amendment today. Nevertheless, I am optimistic about what the CRC will look like.

Clause 17 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Commission for Rural Communities]:
	[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 226:
	Page 48, line 12, leave out "appointed by the Secretary of State" and insert "elected by Commission members"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We now move to the make-up of the Commission for Rural Communities. The aim of this group of amendments, of which mine are Amendments Nos. 226, 228, 231, 233 and 234, is to explore whether the Commission for Rural Communities should be an organisation that grows from the bottom up or one that is imposed from the top down. At the moment, each region has a rural affairs forum. Each forum is formed from the many bodies that send representatives to it, and I have no doubt that those representatives are elected. Some time ago, the Government themselves looked at the role of the regional rural affairs forums and concluded that,
	"we believe a stronger relationship is needed with each region individually, if Ministers are to understand the differences as well as similarities across rural England. The Government will therefore build even closer links between the Regional Rural Affairs Forums and Ministers from relevant departments, with quarterly meetings with the Chairs of the Forums–including meeting in the regions".
	How often do those meetings happen and are they productive?
	Each regional rural affairs forum has a chair, and, assuming that the Government's wish has come true, they meet with Ministers. Those chairs must be well in touch with their regions and with what is happening in central government. I therefore submit that the chairs of those forums are particularly well placed to be the regional representatives on the Commission for Rural Communities.
	Why do we need another parallel body given that the Commission for Rural Communities intends to draw each of its members from each of the regions, so that they are represented? That seems a high degree of duplication. If the chairs of the regional rural forums were members of the Commission for Rural Communities, it would give a feed up from the bottom to the national body. It would also give much more coherence to the Government's wish for Ministers to meet those representing the regions and to have rural proofing carried out. Given the job descriptions of CRC members, it would not be unduly onerous for one person to fulfil the role of both the regional rural forum chair and a commission member, as so much of the work would involve looking at the same issues.
	The other amendments in this group envisage that it should be for commission members to choose their chair from among their number. That would enhance the independence of the commission, bearing in mind all the eloquent speeches made in favour of the fact that this person would have a direct line to the Prime Minister, would be very influential with Ministers, and so on. At the same time, there is a slight paradox in that they are appointed essentially by a Minister—even given the Nolan rules.
	That is a secondary point. The real point is that I should like the CRC, if we are to have it, to grow up from the grass roots through the regions into a national body and not one imposed from the top that then effectively floats around the regions, largely duplicating what the rural affairs forums already do regionally. I would be very interested to know what other Members of the Committee feel on this issue. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Exeter: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, through Amendment No. 228, raises an interesting and important point. With the demise of the National Rural Affairs Forum, the regional rural forums are increasingly important. They have the capacity to bring together in the regions precisely that wide coalition of voices about which I was speaking earlier. Clearly there must be some engagement between them and the new CRC, and mechanisms to achieve that are well worth exploring.
	I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness again, especially when we share a commitment to dealing with so many of the real rural issues together in the south-west, but I believe that she has chosen the wrong way forward. I believe that for three reasons. First, the chairmanship of a regional rural forum and the membership of an effective CRC are likely to require rather different skills sets. Secondly, there is likely to be a difference in the time commitment required. Many of the existing regional rural forum chairs would simply not be able to give the time commitment required to a robust and independent body without detriment either to that body or to the forum or to the very fields in which they have responsibilities that give them their standing and credibility.
	Thirdly, I believe that very different appointment processes are likely to be required. It is entirely right that the chair of a regional rural forum should be appointed by local representative means. However, if the CRC is to be robust and independent, if it is not to be that high-level talking shop that none of us wants, and if it is to have bite as well as bark, it will require a compact membership of real weight and experience and containing an appropriate balance of skills. That is likely to be best achieved through processes that are open and transparent, such as those offered through the Nolan procedures, which is why I support the thrust of Amendment No. 229.
	The noble Baroness has raised some important points but I hope that they might be explored in a rather different way.

The Duke of Montrose: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 227, 229, 230 and 232. With the leave of the Committee, I will also address our Amendments Nos. 264 and 265, which are similar, dealing with another body contained in the Bill.
	The principle of these amendments was debated earlier when we were considering Natural England. On the first day in Committee the Minister explained to us the processes that would be used in appointing the chairman of Natural England. Here we are dealing with the appointment of the chairman of the CRC. Will she confirm that appointments to all the bodies listed in the Bill will follow the same procedure?

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I seem to have managed to insert Amendment No. 231A between the Liberal Front Bench and my own Front Bench. It states:
	"In making appointments to the Commission, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing at least one person who has considerable experience of, and has shown capacity in, the rural affairs of local authorities".
	This follows on very well from the remarks just made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. In his earlier speech on Clause 17, he produced a lovely phrase about the Commission for Rural Communities "turning invisible persons into visible persons". I so enjoyed that phrase that it gives me pleasure to repeat it.
	When I hear that the chairman will be one of those people who has "direct access to the Prime Minister", as an ex-Chief Whip from the other place, I am never very convinced by that. Someone who has direct access to the Prime Minister is not really in the business of making invisible persons visible. For that reason I have put forward this amendment, which suggests that there should be one representative from the local authorities on the commission. As the Minister said in his previous speech, local authorities have a wealth of knowledge on this issue.
	I would like to see a pathfinder project. From my own involvement with the South Downs Joint Committee, I know that Hampshire is putting itself forward to manage the pathfinder project in Hampshire, if it can, and thus, with a great deal of determination, to bring together under one local authority roof the needs of the countryside, not just of farmers, and then trying to match those needs with help from local authorities themselves, partners such as the RSPB and the Environment Agency, and EU money.
	As we move forward with the CRC, it is important that this knowledge should not be lost, but should be used to the full. I therefore put down this amendment, which aims to provide a formal but modest supportive connection between local government and the new commission. As I have just said, local government has access to the evidence, skills and resources that could assist the commission in achieving its objectives. Through local democracy the ever-changing needs of rural communities are now monitored, and, through the same process, the public service responses can be championed. The job of the commission will be to advise the Government on the needs of the rural communities, and this proposed connection will provide local government with a continuing opportunity to make its wide knowledge available to the commission.
	I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider this modest amendment favourably and I look forward very much to what she has to say.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I shall speak to all the amendments in the group in the order in which they appear on the Groupings List. Amendment No. 226 proposes that the CRC chairman should be elected by its board. I believe that all members of the CRC board should be chosen for their particular skills, whether they are academic researchers, farmers or people who own rural businesses, people with experience of rural deprivation, those with experience of young or old people living in rural areas and so on. The chairman is chosen because of his or her broad knowledge and experience and the ability to chair. In the light of our recent debate, he or she must have the confidence of the Secretary of State and, indeed, the backing of the Prime Minister. Therefore, I believe that the chair ought to be appointed rather than chosen by the board.
	As regards Amendments Nos. 227 and 229, I totally agree that all members of the commission must be chosen following an open process and interview. Amendment No. 228 proposes that all regional rural forum chairmen should automatically be members of the commission. On reflection, I do not think that is the right way forward. The process of becoming a regional rural forum chair is pretty random. Sometimes it can be short term. I know of two cases of people taking on that position just for a year because no one else could be found. That would not be satisfactory. In many cases it is a Buggins' turn process. Someone may even be on a regional rural forum because no one else from an organisation volunteered. In such circumstances it would not be a case of an open process and interview. That is not the right way forward.
	The other argument against such a process is that it may result in gaps in expertise on the CRC board or an unnecessary doubling up of expertise because it would be rather a random process. After all, regional rural forum chairs do get their say currently in the National Rural Affairs Forum. Representing the delegated interests of your regional rural forum is a slightly different job from the free thinking, politically aware skills that will be required for the CRC. There is a much better way of maintaining a small and effective CRC board; that is, by ensuring that a proper process of selection takes place which also takes provenance into account. My experience of the Countryside Agency was that it made certain that there was someone from every region, or someone who could at least represent the interests of that region, on its board. You can represent provenance as well as skills and expertise. As I say, it has been done before.
	As regards Amendment No. 230, the chairman ought to be involved in the selection process of other board members. He or she has to meld that board into an effective force and knows best both the skills and weaknesses of existing members and hence what the gaps are. I suspect that the Secretary of State can insist on having his way in the matter but to my mind the chairman must have a fairly big say. I once came up against a Minister's wishes in that regard and I am glad to say that I won. As I say, it is important that the chair has a fairly big say in choosing the other board members. I do not understand the desire to remove paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2, which concerns members having relevant experience or skills.
	As regards Amendment No. 231, I am all in favour of not having too big a board but it seems sensible to leave provision in the Bill to change the numbers on the board without necessarily having primary legislation. However, I am not too fussed about that.
	Amendment No. 231A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, refers to,
	"the desirability of appointing at least one person who has . . . experience of . . . the rural affairs of local authorities".
	I totally support the thinking behind that amendment. It is certainly desirable as the CRC will have to have a very good understanding of the way in which local authorities work and how to influence them. As was mentioned earlier, the CRC will also have to have a good working relationship with the rural commission of the LGA. It will have to have a very good understanding of the RDAs, academic research into social issues, rural deprivation, rural businesses, which obviously includes land management, and perhaps a good understanding of effective lobbying in Whitehall, which will probably be an important role, and perhaps even, in this day of spin, marketing skills—you never know. The needs of the board will inevitably undergo a change in emphasis as time goes on. While I totally agree that the local authority angle is a crucial need that must be filled, I am not certain that I would want to give it a priori attention by making it the only provision mentioned in the Bill with regard to appointments to the commission. However, as I say, I am sympathetic to the amendment.
	Amendment No. 232 addresses the question of the Secretary of State appointing a deputy chair. Perhaps such a small body does not need a deputy chair. That would involve extra funding so perhaps the Secretary of State should make that decision. Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 propose that the CRC and not the Secretary of State should remove board members. There is something to be said for the decision to remove a board member being at one remove from the CRC. I believe that a nettle is more likely to be gripped that way. In those circumstances the chief executive officer would obviously have to consult with Defra and would have to ensure that all the relevant processes were correctly followed. However, I believe that the process becomes slightly less personal if the ultimate decision in such a matter is taken by the Secretary of State. In my view that could be a good thing.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support Amendment No. 231A in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for what I acknowledge are paradoxical reasons. I was once the first headhunter in the United Kingdom. One of the principal responsibilities and obligations of a headhunter is to get the client to indicate precisely what specifications he is trying to fill, and, ideally, to give some indication of where the person might come from. The paradox arises because I have the greatest possible respect for those who were Chief Whips of the government party between 1979 and 1997, but I sometimes doubted whether they had thought in terms of specifications for particular jobs on which they made recommendations to the Prime Minister rather than thinking that the person was good in the House of Commons and would be relevant in the government. I give a single example. In the National Health Service there is a particular need for experience of achieving change in large-scale organisations. I never saw any significant sign that in selecting Ministers to serve in the Department of Health between 1979 and 1997, that consideration ever entered into the process at all. If it did, they were unsuccessful in responding to that specification.
	I am enthusiastic about my noble friend's specifications on this occasion, in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was. They are specifications which could well be omitted from paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2, which might be interpreted by an unkind critic of the drafting as "any decent rural experience will do". My noble friend's amendment simply says that the Secretary of State has to "have regard to". That is not a compulsory or mandatory specification, but I happen to think that the particular issue which he has identified is one which is immensely worth having on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I could not possibly follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, down the road of the griefs and internal problems involved in promotions to government office in the period prior to 1997. That would be most unwise of me.
	These amendments are designed to reduce some of the Secretary of State's powers in relation to the appointment of the CRC chairman and board. They do not take account of what we intend the CRC board to achieve and how we can best appoint the right people to the board to make a success of the CRC and properly address the needs of rural communities. On Amendment No. 226, for the CRC to be effective it will require a strong strategic steer. Therefore, it is essential that the board chairman has the necessary leadership skills to provide such a steer—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—in addition to the experience and expertise that all the board members will contribute. The appointment of the chairman needs to be made using different criteria from those used for board appointments, so it would not be appropriate to elect a chairman from among the board members.
	On Amendments Nos. 231 and 230, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, together with the chairman, the board of the CRC should be appointed by the Secretary of State to ensure that between them they have the skills required to direct the commission in fulfilling its functions. That point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. On Amendment No. 230, surely the Secretary of State will need to consult the chairman about board appointments to help to ensure a fit between candidates' expertise and personal skills and those required by the CRC. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, bore out that need. The Secretary of State is required to follow the OCPA code of practice, so she will need to have regard to the criteria necessary to select people who will enable the board to function effectively.
	Amendment No. 231A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, touches on very similar themes. I make it absolutely clear that all appointments to all bodies covered by the Bill will be made according to the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments; the appointment of someone who happens to have local authority experience and fits the other criteria needed will not in any way be precluded by the process that is to be followed—that is important. The effect of this amendment would be that experience of the rural affairs of local authorities would become the only specified criterion for board member selection included in the Bill, beyond the general wording already included. If we were to include such a restrictive addition, we would need to consider adding similar criteria covering all the CRC's many other stakeholders to ensure that their interests were similarly represented on the CRC's board.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The noble Baroness appears to be arguing that because one good idea might lead to other good ideas she should not accept the first good idea. I have been grateful for the support from others in the Committee in this short debate. I suggest that she and her colleagues think very seriously about this, because there is a wealth of information in the local authorities that the commission will want to make use of. If the amendment were acceptable, this would be a hallmark of the fact that the CRC is willing to co-operate to use that information and knowledge rather than walking away from it. For that reason, perhaps the Government Front Bench would have a further think about the proposal.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was about to declare a past interest as a member of local authorities for nearly 27 years, with 20 years as a member of Lancashire County Council. I am only too well aware of the point that is being raised and I could not do other than recognise it, looking at the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with his long experience of Essex County Council. However, once you start with a little list, all those other stakeholders will demand that they are put in the Bill, too. I am seeking to make it absolutely plain that there is no preclusion of appointment of people with that local authority experience. Speaking purely personally, I can see that such experience would be one of the stronger factors that would be taken into account, but if that were the only criterion beyond the general wording it could become prescriptive or lead to a lengthening list. I am certain that other stakeholders would come forward.
	Schedule 2, paragraph 3(3), on page 48, together with the OCPA code of practice, already requires that the Secretary of State has regard to the criteria necessary to select people who will enable the board to function effectively. It helps to ensure that board members will have demonstrated capacity in,
	"some matter relevant to the exercise of the Commission's functions".
	Given the CRC's public sector-wide remit, "some matter relevant" can be taken to include the rural affairs of local authorities, without specifically needing to say so.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, spoke to Amendment No. 228, which would require the CRC board to consist solely of the chairmen of the regional rural affairs forums as ex officio members. While the CRC will work in close collaboration with the regional rural affairs forums, and there will be links between the CRC and the forums, the chairmen of the forums will not necessarily have the collective expertise and experience required by the CRC board—that point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. The Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the CRC, so it is right for her, rather than the chairman, to make the board appointments, using transparent selection procedures. At present, there is one RRAF chairman and one RRAF member on the Countryside Agency board—neither of them was recruited solely on that criterion, but clearly it enhanced their rural credentials. The chairs of the RRAFs meet Ministers quarterly, and I understand that the next meeting with the Minister, my honourable friend Jim Knight, is to be next week.
	I was asked about the role of regional rural affairs forums. They have a secretariat provided by government offices, although the chair is a non-government person. Their members are usually rural stakeholders from around each region. They exist to help to rural-proof things at regional level, especially now that the Countryside Agency does not have its regional presence. They are seen as a primary means by which grass-roots customers of government services can give feedback to government to ensure that those services meet the needs of rural people and that they deliver practical benefits on the ground.
	As touched on by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, the chairmen of the forums are volunteers. That is a different role from being appointed to a national statutory body, which could weaken the link that the chairmen and their forums have with their own grass roots. The Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the CRC, so it is right for her rather than the chairman to make the board appointments, but ex officio appointments would not be in line with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

The Duke of Montrose: I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would give way for a second. As noble Lords can see, our amendments were focused on exploring just how much power the Secretary of State should have in the whole body. We have heard numerous powerful arguments about his involvement, including appointing all the members of the commission. But with regard to our Amendment No. 232, did the Minister notice that paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 states that the Secretary of State "may appoint" the deputy chairman? I wonder how strongly the Government feel about the appointment of a deputy chairman.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall come to Amendment No. 232 later if the noble Duke will be patient.
	With regard to Amendment No. 231, although the proposed size of the CRC board is appropriate for the commission's functions and size in the foreseeable future, it would seem sensible to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to adjust the number of board members at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to that. Requiring the use of a statutory instrument for such a change will mean that it will be made only where it is essential for the CRC to continue effectively to fulfil its role.
	I turn to Amendment No. 231 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and Amendment No. 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. For the board to be fully effective, it may be useful to appoint a deputy chairman to share the leadership responsibilities. I suggest that, because of the Secretary of State's accountability for the CRC, she should be involved in appointing someone who has the required skills. There are no plans to do so at present and it is a discretionary power.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. On the basis that the Secretary of State has approved the CRC board appointments, I would argue that it is only right that the Secretary of State should also have the powers to accept resignations from members and be able to remove members who are unable or unfit to carry out their duties, thus helping to ensure that the board continues to function effectively.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, also spoke to Amendments Nos. 264 and 265, so I assume that he is grouping them with these amendments. They relate to the appointment of members to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and are designed to require the Secretary of State to select the chairman and independent members of the joint committee following an open and fair competition regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	The noble Duke recognised that Schedule 4 does not specify the procedures which the Secretary of State should employ when appointing the chairman and independent members. That is because—I can give him this assurance—Ministers are already required to follow the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments when making appointments to non-departmental public bodies. The joint committee is covered by the code, and that will not change when it is reconstituted.
	Amendment No. 266 is designed to impose specific terms on appointments to the joint committee and to impose a maximum of 10 years for any appointee. Schedule 4 does not specify the lengths of appointments. However, the joint committee is covered by the code issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and that will not change when it is reconstituted.
	I am assuming that the intention is to ensure a phased turnover of appointments. I can see how that might work in theory were we setting up a new committee from scratch, but the JNCC will be reconstituted and some existing appointments will carry over. Following best practice, in the past appointments have been made so that they do not all come to an end at the same time but, however well we plan these things, premature resignations can frustrate our intentions. That is a good reason in itself to retain a greater degree of flexibility. It also covers those who are appointed from the UK conservation agencies and could conceivably impinge on appointments to those bodies.
	I understand the intention behind the last amendment and support the underlying principle, but it is at odds with the code because an appointee who has served two full terms or 10 years is eligible to apply for appointment through open competition and he can be appointed again if selected on merit through that competitive process.
	I hope that that is helpful. I was not expecting to speak to those amendments at this point. If I find that I have omitted anything that I should have included, I will of course write to the noble Duke and clarify it. For all the reasons that I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will feel confident about withdrawing her amendment and that the other amendments spoken to will not be moved.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, meant to say "the noble Baroness, Lady Miller".

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I did; I am sorry.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Perhaps I may mention the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, with which I naturally have considerable sympathy. I believe that when we debated the rural development Bill, we asked for a member specifically with rural interests to be included. I think that I am right in saying that the Government resisted that for a while and then gave in to us, so I live in hope that the Minister will reflect on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, between now and Report.
	Reflecting on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular, I think that Defra has a bit of a job to do in strengthening the regional rural affairs forums. I accept that in some regions they are working well and that the chairs are very effective. However, reading between the lines of some of the contributions from noble Lords, it seems to me that, although they should be very effective bodies, all the stakeholders in the regions find that the members within those stakeholder bodies are fighting among themselves to be representatives on the regional rural affairs forums because they are powerful bodies that make a difference. If that is the case, I believe that Defra needs to see whether it should do something about it. I hope that the creation of the CRC will not mean that the regional rural affairs forums take very much second place and that Defra will not worry about them too much any more.
	One question stays in my mind. What if the rural regional affairs forum comes up with one view of life—particularly life in its region—and the CRC comes up with another? Whose voice will be heard by Ministers, including the Prime Minister? That is still an unresolved issue. Between now and Report I shall reflect on what everyone has said but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 227 to 231 not moved.]

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 231A:
	Page 48, line 20, at end insert—
	"(3A) In making appointments to the Commission, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing at least one person who has considerable experience of, and has shown capacity in, the rural affairs of local authorities."

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said but I should also like to read it carefully. I have to say that at this stage I am not convinced by her arguments and I may well wish to return to the matter on Report. I do not want to repeat the arguments now and, on that basis, I shall not move the amendment tonight.

[Amendment No. 231A not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 235:
	Page 49, line 11, leave out "pensions,"

Baroness Byford: We return yet again to pensions. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me following our previous discussion and I shall explain why I wish to return to the subject.
	I understand that board members of the commission will be appointed by the Secretary of State and may be paid,
	"such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine".
	The commission must also pay towards the provision of pensions, gratuities and allowances. That provision will presumably take effect at the end of each member's service, or when he or she reaches pensionable age. Why is there a need to pay a pension to those who are still serving members? If there is, on what basis will it be calculated?
	The Bill makes the same provision for the payment of pensions to the employees of the commission as it does to board members. It also sets the same proviso for the payments towards the future pension provision for employees. When we debated pensions in relation to Natural England, I was assured that the provision applied only to the board chairman and possibly the deputy chairman. I cannot accept that that is the case when in several places in the Bill the same provisions appear covering the whole board and sometimes the employees as well.
	The letter that I received from the Minister states:
	"Where a significant time commitment is required, it is often only feasible for such people to serve as board members if they are fairly remunerated for their services. An appropriate package may in these circumstances need to include pension arrangements. Such arrangements will, needless to say, only be made where they can demonstrate sound value for money. Typically, it will only be the chair, or deputy chair, of a board who falls into this category, but that may not always be the case.
	"In establishing a new body, it is therefore standard practice to insert a clause taking powers to make pension arrangements for board members.
	"In practice, the decision by the Secretary of State to approve pension arrangements for a board member will be a matter of discretion".
	My question, following that response, has to be: when is that decided? Is it decided when the person is interviewed and being considered as a board member? Is it part of the remit of the Secretary of State or the interview panel to discuss it with the person putting himself forward as a board member? Or is it decided afterwards when a board member has been appointed? It is not clear.
	The letter continues:
	"A situation might arise when another Board member was invited to work for more than the usual 2–3 days/month and there should be discretion to consider the pension issue".
	I am concerned about pensions and who is entitled to them. Will the existing pension of somebody who goes on to be a board member be taken up by the department, or is a pension to be part of the payment package? Perhaps the remuneration is considered not enough, which is why the pension scheme is being imposed. I am sorry to return to the issue, but I find it very perplexing. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: I am perplexed by the amendment. We want to ensure that the best possible people are on the board. My experience of organisations in which I have been involved suggests that there is a danger of limiting the availability of people to serve if the result of giving serious service over several days a week are financial penalties affecting their pension when they retire from their other work. Such a flexible provision is an extremely sensible and cautious arrangement to ensure that the list of available people on whom we can call to serve—invaluably, we hope—is as wide as possible.

Earl Peel: I have not disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, so far in our debates, but on this occasion I do. I strongly support my noble friend.
	I had the privilege of serving on the council of English Nature for six years—two three-year appointments. We received a small salary, but there was no mention of a pension. A considerable number of people who served on that council were not particularly well off. I have made the point before that they did it because it was an honour and a privilege to serve on the council. That should be the overriding reason why people accept such appointments.
	The job is not that onerous. We are talking only about several days a month. If it means reflecting that through an increase in salary, that is the way to go about it. Principally, I think that pensions should be restricted exclusively to the chairman, and possibly the deputy chairman. To extend it to members of councils or boards of such bodies is wrong, and I thoroughly support my noble friend.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This is a serious issue. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is saying, and that for reasons of equality, those who might otherwise not be able to afford to do so can take on such roles. That is worthy. However, when one looks at the website for government appointments, on which I congratulate the Government, one sees vast inequalities between the different appointments. Many appointees are paid nothing except travelling expenses; some are paid a substantial amount per year; and some much less. That does not always reflect the amount of time given to a particular role. When the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, previously raised this matter, we asked for a list of the remunerations that bodies received. Pensions equally fall into this category. This might be one of only two or three bodies; or 20 bodies might have pensions; or, we might be setting a precedent. These are interesting issues to which we have still not had answers.

Viscount Eccles: Perhaps I can offer personal experience. For a time I had a pensionable post in the public sector as deputy chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I was given a choice, which was either to stay in the government pension scheme or to accept a slightly larger remuneration and make my own pension arrangements. At the same time, the Treasury insisted that I did not give up any possibility of there being a widow's pension, so my noble kinsman can look forward to a small pension—may be not, but let us assume that things happen normally.
	Pensions are enormously complicated, subject to a great deal of legislation. I thought that we were moving towards having as many people as possible making their own pension arrangements by money purchase out of a remuneration package that enabled them to do so. I urge on the Minister that the pension possibility is best administered by way of a remuneration package received on the understanding that the individual will make his own self-invested arrangements, rather than becoming a member of a government scheme, with all the administrative costs involved.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I fear that I had not noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, had sought certain information in some of her questions; for example, on the range of incomes. I apologise, and will write to noble Lords who have spoken on this.
	The pension provisions are part of the standard arrangements for NDPBs, allowing the Secretary of State to require the CRC to pay pensions to its board members and staff. In practice, of the CRC board only the chairman and deputy chairman are likely to be pensionable appointments. The Cabinet Office requires ministerial governance of pensions, and it will be a condition of entry for the Civil Service pension scheme. Amounts would be calculated on a case-by-case basis.
	I was asked whether pensions could go beyond the chair or deputy chair. If another person on the board takes on extra responsibility, such as a significant amount of work, several days a week over a prolonged period—perhaps chairing an audit committee—they could be considered. They would be appointed in liaison by the chair and the CEO, who works as the accounting officer. In turn, that would have to be overseen, under Cabinet Office rules, by the Secretary of State.
	Chair appointments are pensionable in the case of a number of other bodies: the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency, English Nature and the JNCC. There is provision for a deputy chair position on the board of the Environment Agency, but there are no employer pension contributions as the time worked is less than two days a week. The deputy chair position on the board of English Nature is also pensionable, but the position is currently vacant. I understand that some of the other chairs also have pensionable vacancies.
	I understand the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the possibility of separate personal arrangements being made. That will depend, to a degree, on the type of appointment and remuneration package that is in the public interest, as well as the interest of the individual concerned.
	I am conscious that other questions have been asked, and will write as comprehensive a reply as I may. In answer to one of the important points of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, my understanding—and I will correct this if I am wrong—is that the question of other NDPBs was considered at the time that individual appointments were considered. To a great extent, it must be a personalised package because circumstances differ.
	I agree, rather sadly, with the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I, too, had many friends and colleagues in local government who gave full-time service for many years and never had a pension of their own. I do not believe they should be so deeply out of pocket as a result of service to the community. I never met anybody who went into local government for the money; I met people who lost money by being in it. That was my experience.

Earl Peel: No one is suggesting that anybody should be out of pocket. However, if Members of your Lordships' House can be appointed to carry out important legislative duties without a salary or pension, it is not unreasonable to ask people to sit on the board of, say, the CRC or the council of Natural England, without receiving such remuneration.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Forgive me; perhaps even we do not get a true cross-representation of society.

Baroness Byford: I cannot agree with the Minister's last comment.
	When we touched upon the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I explained—and will explain again—that we should select the most able and willing person to do the job. Selection should not be made on whether a candidate can afford to do the job. As a former member of the Train Users' Consultative Committee many years ago—which then became the Rail Users' Consultative Committee—we certainly received only travel expenses. I was well aware that one or two people serving on that committee would perhaps have benefited from a bit of extra help; although I was not in the loop and I did not know.
	I have tried to get two real issues across. Perhaps when the Minister has a chance to read Hansard they may become clearer. Board members—not including the chairman and deputy chairman, because their workload will be much busier—presumably will not bring a pension with them, because they are likely to be working people who may not have one. I am trying to establish whether the new system will pay them a pension, or contribute to a fund, which perhaps they do not have, if they are not of pensionable age.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I try to help the noble Baroness; forgive me if I get it wrong. It is not envisaged that board members other than the chairman and deputy chairman would be in receipt of a pension. The time they devoted to the task would be very different. The only reservation is where somebody may take on a lengthy task, taking far more days in the week than the average board member.

Baroness Byford: The Minister and I are in agreement on that. I do not have any difficulty there. It still raises a question, however, on how we are making a pension payment to somebody who is, perhaps, not retired and does not have a pension—unless they have saved up for themselves. Or is it being added to their commercial—I use the word in its broadest sense—pension? I will need to come back to this.
	An employee who is doing a great deal of work on a particular CRC project may have been seconded from another department. Will they be considered to be full-time within this new department? I am obviously not going to press the matter now, but there is a whole range of issues and I have tried, in my amendments, to suggest to the Minister that they have not been addressed.
	Perhaps it would be sensible, because I do not wish to delay the House, to have further conversations on this issue between now and Report stage. I am not clear who is paying what. When somebody has been seconded to the new NDPB to do a specific job as an employee, will their pension payments be borne by this new department, or will they be borne by, say, Defra? I accept that it is confusing, but it is a wider issue, perhaps, than I have conveyed to the Minister tonight—although I have had a second go at doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 236:
	Page 49, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

The Duke of Montrose: Once again, this is a repeat of some questions we asked about Natural England. In response, the first time around, the Minister promised to get us answers and a certain number were given in Hansard. However, the question on the appointments system remains. Under the proposed system, the board could well comprise over 50 per cent of the original members in 10 years' time. Will the present system still stand?
	I shall not move Amendment No. 237. I beg to move Amendment No. 236.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 236 would remove the Secretary of State's power to appoint the CRC's first chief executive. This clause is in the Bill simply so that the Secretary of State can make the first appointment of a CRC chief executive if it is desirable that she does so. This is perfectly standard NDPB governance which ensures that the Secretary of State could, if required, ensure that a chief executive is in place from the outset of the CRC. I note that the noble Duke did not speak to Amendment No. 237.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for her reply. Perhaps this is one way in which the Government are trying to overcome the fact that they have had to appoint more or less a shadow body already and it has only been the Secretary of State who has had power to appoint people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 239:
	Page 49, line 37, leave out "applies" and insert "can apply"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 240:
	Page 51, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

The Duke of Montrose: I remind the Committee that any body corporate is bound by a number of Acts that require it to meet financial, employment, competition and many other standards. In all cases, they render it liable to inspection by Revenue and Customs, the Health and Safety Executive, the Audit Commission and a host of other organisations. The response of the noble Baroness on Amendment No. 98 is at col. 1116 of Hansard for 24 January, but it did not answer the specific questions about the nature of the Secretary of State's inquiry; the type of person who will inspect and make copies; the explanations that will be sought and why; how often that intrusion will occur; whether the outcome will be made available to the chairman; and whether the Secretary of State will publicise the exercise, the reasons for it and the results. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am rather surprised that the noble Duke has raised this matter because the accounts provision is a standard practice of NDPBs and gives the Government and the taxpayer a guaranteed level of accountability for the CRC. The noble Duke asked who would have the right to see the accounts. The commission will be obliged to make them publicly available. He also asked in what circumstances accounts could be sought. Internal Defra auditors are required to produce them annually or more often were there to be financial problems within the organisation, which is a rare occurrence. There has to be an annual internal audit for good governance practice. I hope that answers the noble Duke's questions.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and her contention that this is a standard practice. Perhaps it is the nature of good governance, but it appears to be a belt and braces exercise in the normal way the Audit Commission and other bodies will be looking at it. Perhaps this provision is to provide powers for the department also to do its own exercise. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Commission's general purpose]:
	[Amendments Nos. 241 to 248 not moved.]
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Representation, advice and monitoring]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 249:
	Page 7, line 26, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This amendment relates to the matter we debated a little while ago about the CRC representing the needs of rural people. We had a full debate, so I do not think that there is anything to add at this stage.

[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 250 to 255 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Information services etc.]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 256:
	Page 8, line 2, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 256 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 257 and 258. They are concerned with the information provided by the commission. If the commission is to be established, it should publish documents and provide information, so Amendment No. 256 substitutes "shall" for "may" thereby putting a duty on the commission. That duty is not an alternative: the commission must publish documents, provide information and assist in the provision of information, because it will not always be in a position to publish itself. In our debates, we have accepted that there is a role for the commission and the provision of information is one of the critical roles that it can play. Apart from monitoring and criticising other organisations, it will gather information. If that information is not published and disseminated as widely as possible, it will be difficult for other organisations to know what the commission's requirements are. Furthermore, the general public has a right to as wide an awareness as possible. This clause could do with strengthening and that is what this amendment does. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: I hope that the noble Baroness will not find it patronising if I say that I agree with her. Since the commission is bound to publish these documents anyway, why does the Bill use "may" and not "shall"?

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My reading of the clause is slightly different. I think that not stipulating what the CRC shall publish undermines the amendment. There is undoubtedly a need for publications, and statistics will change from year to year, so I am of a different opinion.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We are expecting the CRC to be an independent body operating at arm's length from government. Therefore, we should not remove its discretion to decide what information it publishes or otherwise makes publicly available. The commission should be able to judge for itself whether it would be appropriate to publish documents or provide information on a case-by-case basis. That will allow it to draw attention to specific rural issues at appropriate times and to contribute effectively to wider debates on rural matters.
	The CRC will, of course, be required to publish an annual report to the Secretary of State. Paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 2 makes provision for this. We also expect it to continue to publish an annual "state of the countryside" report. Under Clause 19(c), it already has a duty to report on its monitoring of the extent to which rural service delivery policies are meeting rural needs. In gathering evidence and providing advice on rural issues, the CRC will be subject to both the Freedom of Information Act and data which should ensure appropriate access to information for all interested parties.
	My noble friend Lord Carter wickedly raised the issue of the difference between "may" and "shall". He has longer experience of parliamentary draftsmen than I do, and knows—as I do—that in the general world there are some differences, but that in the parliamentary draftsman's world there are major differences. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, with all those assurances about access to information, will feel able to make the parliamentary draftsman's life a happy one.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I feel very encouraged by the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I must have argued my case more strongly and cogently than I did on the last amendment, which he did not feel able to support. I did not hear any support from the Conservative Benches, which slightly surprised me, knowing how keen they are on information being made available. I feel not one bit reassured by the Minister, because I would not like the public to have always to rely on the Freedom of Information Act. Parliamentary draftsmen should be consistent. In this instance I will leave enough time for the Minister to reconsider—I hope—but I feel inclined to return to the matter on Report. If we are to have a commission, the Government have to provide as much information to those paying for it—the taxpayers, in rural areas especially—as possible. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 257 and 258 not moved.]
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 259:
	After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
	"GUIDANCE
	The Secretary of State may give the Commission guidance as to the exercise of its functions."

The Duke of Montrose: We are now moving on to the powers of the Secretary of State. On page 6, the Bill contains a section governing the issue of guidance to Natural England. It also has a section on directions for Natural England. Does the exclusion of guidance from the rules governing the rural commission imply that it will be totally unfettered in the pursuit of its purpose? Do the Government consider that Chapter 2 is sufficient to ensure that the many parties with whom the commission will have to deal will be constrained to pay attention?
	Guidance is a two-edged weapon. It compels the object of its strictures to consider it, but it has an effect on the relationships that that body has to form to meet its purposes. Do the Government consider that, without guidance, other departments, employer organisations, local authorities, property developers and the like will appreciate the necessity of working with the commission and take heed of its message? I beg to move.

Lord Bach: I understand the nature of this probing amendment. Clause 24(2) gives the Secretary of State power to fund the CRC and to place conditions on such funding. The conditions can include a requirement for the commission to agree a management statement and financial memorandum between itself and the department. This is normal practice to ensure accountability and propriety, and how things currently work for the Countryside Agency. But because the CRC will not be a delivery body, unlike Natural England, it will be a strong independent rural advocate, adviser and watchdog, ensuring that the Government's policies make a real difference to people in rural areas. That is one reason why the Bill does not require a guidance clause.
	The second reason is that the CRC is an advisory, as opposed to a delivery, NDPB. In its challenge function, it has to be reliant on its impartiality and independence from government in order to carry out its remit. I should have thought that the noble Duke would be pleased that its independence is being strengthened by the fact that it does not have to have guidance in the clause—unlike Natural England, which, as he rightly pointed out, has a guidance clause.
	If the Secretary of State were able to issue the body with guidance beyond the sort envisaged by Clause 24(2), or the new clause proposed in the amendment, this could be perceived as jeopardising the CRC's independence. If it is not thought to be as independent as it possibly can be, it is more likely to fail than succeed, to judge from what noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have said.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I do not want to anticipate too much the noble Viscount's opposition to the Question that Clause 25 stand part, but what is the difference between guidance and directions?

Lord Bach: Directions are always essential in case an NDPB goes completely off the rails and does something absolutely absurd. If so, it needs ministerial directions to put it back on the rails. Guidance is in one sense less than directions, but we feel that it is not necessary for this independent body, the CRC. On balance, it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to have the power to issue such guidance to the CRC. I hope that answers the questions the noble Duke posed.

Lord Carter: I also was puzzled why there was no guidance in this section. I think I understand why from my noble friend's answer. If the Secretary of State had the power to issue guidance and the CRC was proving rather an embarrassment to the department and the Government—for example, in its rural-proofing exercise or its rural advocacy—it could be given guidance, in a sense, to back off. I think I understand that not having the power to give guidance strengthens the independence of the body.

Lord Bach: My noble friend has got that right. The difference is between "having regard to" guidance, which is what Natural England has to do if it receives guidance, and "having to comply with" directions, which of course is what any non-departmental public body has to do.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for offering his explanations. We on these Benches are very keen to support anything that offers more independence to this body, and shows that it has independence. It is a little difficult to see why not having to give guidance makes it more independent than being able to give it directions, but I understand what the noble Lord says about the reserved powers—that the Secretary of State must in the final analysis be able to give directions. In the mean time, we will consider what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 25 [Directions]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount Eccles: In speaking to Clause 25, I will add briefly to the points made on Clause 16. I remain uneasy about the powers given to the Secretary of State by these clauses. I will study the present position of English Nature and the Countryside Agency in the light of the Minister's assurance that there is to be no increase in powers.
	Clause 25 is shorter than and as widely drawn as Clause 16. Following the Minister's reply on Clause 16, will he give the Committee an assurance that if and when directions are made they will either address administrative matters of limited significance or will be made, as he suggested just now, as a move of last resort to deal with manifestly unreasonable behaviour by the commission?
	This latter point is well illustrated by Defra's memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which refers to paragraph 103 of Schedule 11 and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. The final sentence of the memorandum reads:
	"If the Secretary of State felt that her intervention was required because the Board was proposing to act unreasonably, then she could still exercise control by issuing directions to the Board".
	I also ask the Minister to assure the House that, as with Natural England, no directions are at present contemplated and that, if there were to be, your Lordships' House would be informed before Report.

The Duke of Montrose: As the Committee can probably tell from our discussion on the previous amendment, we are of a similar frame of mind to my noble friend and will also consider the reply.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Viscount raises some interesting questions. On the Minister's reply about guidance and directions, I simply ask who decides what is absurd. The commission may be doing something that the Minister regards as well beyond its brief but, if it believes that to be needed for rural areas, is it for the Minister to step in to say that what it is doing is absurd? We have severe reservations about the clause, especially given that we have had the words "strong independent voice" quoted to us more times since we started to debate the Bill than I can imagine. I question whether that voice can stay independent if it is given directions every time that it does something awkward, which may well be the case.
	I am reassured that the noble Viscount says that he will review the provision against the Natural England requirements, and so on. Perhaps we shall come back to the matter on Report.

Lord Bach: The noble Viscount has made an important point and has given the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, a chance to come back at me on the issue. The noble Viscount asks whether this is a power of last resort or for administrative purposes. I plump very much for the last resort. It will not be used carelessly or in a cavalier fashion, but as a very last resort. It is a long-stop power that I understand is taken with all NDPBs.
	There are three reasons for directions. The first is accountability of public funding if it goes completely awry. Secondly, they may be used for an NDPB—I do not mean the CRC but, for example, Natural England—where there is an enormous conflict of policy between that exercised by the board of the body and government policy. Thirdly, they may be used at the request of a board of a body on a highly political issue on which the board itself does not want to come down on one side or another, but seeks the direction of the Minister. Those are the three classic reasons for directions.
	Let us return to the Commission for Rural Communities. There, the power is an absolute last resort. The noble Baroness asked me what would be absurd. Of course Ministers decide whether something is absurd, but can the Committee imagine the outcry if the Secretary of State decided to make a direction on something that the CRC had done that was in every reasonable person's view something with which the Government should not be intervening? The Secretary of State of any department—a political animal—would certainly not intervene in a body such as the CRC unless it was an absolutely extreme case. This is a back-up power that I would never expect to be used.
	The noble Viscount asked whether there are any draft directions. There are none. If there were to be any before Report—I am pretty certain that there will not be—of course I would make sure that the House knew about them.

Viscount Eccles: I thank the Minister for how he replied to the questions that I put. The famous case on this matter dates from 1976. It was the Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Borough Council. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that Lord Denning gave a judgment, as did Lord Scarman and Lord Lane. On either side, there were advocates named—I cannot get them quite in alphabetical order—as Bingham, Brittan, Lloyd, Caldecott, who is not a Member of your Lordships' House, and Woolf. It is an extremely distinguished case which turned on the question of the difference between being wrong and being unreasonable.

Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Transfers on dissolution of English Nature and Countryside Agency]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 260:
	Page 9, line 12, leave out paragraph (c).

Baroness Byford: Here we begin to deal with transfer schemes under Chapter 3. I want the Minister to explain the circumstance in which property rights and liabilities of either English Nature or the Countryside Agency would be transferred to a regional development agency. Will she also make clear whether that transfer may affect any rural development agency, only one, or more specific ones and whether it is in fact likely that English Nature property rights and liabilities will be transferred to the rural development agencies? Although the dissolution of English Nature and of the Countryside Agency is covered in the Bill, it is very vague and we want to be clearer what will go and where it will go. It would be helpful if the Minister would also clarify whether the rights and liabilities may include duties and responsibilities. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 26 provides for the transfer of property rights and liabilities, covering matters such as land staff, employment contracts, agreements and any outstanding liabilities arising from the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency. With that background, my understanding is that duties are included. I shall be corrected rather quickly if I am wrong.
	The transfers will be achieved through transfer schemes made by the Secretary of State. They may be made to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities, RDAs or Ministers of the Crown. As part of the measures to redeploy staff displaced by the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency, staff in the affected organisations will be eligible to apply for new posts created in RDAs.
	It will be important that the rights of any staff who secure jobs in RDAs can be transferred to their new employers. The transfer of staff will be carried out in such a way that staff are protected so they do not suffer detriment to their employment rights as a result of such a transfer. In the same way, RDAs may need to assume responsibility for liabilities in relation to the staff they employ that continue beyond the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency. This does not apply to duties; it is only about assets and liabilities, not about duties.
	Although there is no proposal to transfer property or property rights and liabilities to RDAs, the facility to do so would be helpful should the need arise. It will be important that all property matters that continue after the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency can be comprehensively transferred to the appropriate body. The noble Baroness asked whether this related to any RDA. It does. It is not envisaged that Natural England property will go to RDAs and, as I said, it will not include duties and responsibilities.
	I hope that I have answered the points that the noble Baroness made, and that she feels confident to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response, but I am not confident. I understand that English Nature is currently in one unit in, I believe, Peterborough, and that the Countryside Agency is based down in Cheltenham. When I read the Bill, I was trying to bring to mind the reason why English Nature might be required to move to be part of an RDA. At this stage, I can see no reason why it should, so it seems unusual for this to be in the Bill. The Minister is looking perplexed.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was less perplexed with the noble Baroness than with whether I could work out the answer.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that comment. Bits of the Countryside Agency may well be transferred, although again we are none the wiser about where the whole of English Nature and the part of the Countryside Agency that will go to the CRC will be based. As the Minister knows, we had debates about that earlier on. We also had fairly big debates about the cost-effectiveness of leaving them where they are when the idea was to draw them under one umbrella. We still do not know where the CRC itself will be placed, so I realise that there are outstanding issues.
	This is really about the possibility built into the Bill that some of this property will be transferred to the rural development agencies. That is why I raise the matter with the Minister.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I fully understand the noble Baroness's concern that too little information is available. That is because the legislation setting up the new body is going through Parliament at the moment. I reassure her that there is no present intention whatever for English Nature to go to the RDAs. That is not envisaged. I think the difficulty is that until decisions are taken about which property is to be used, there is obviously the uncertainty to which the noble Baroness has rightly drawn attention, and that in drafting the legislation, it has to be comprehensively possible for transfers to be made, even though, as I said, there is no intention for English Nature to go to the RDAs.
	I hope that more information will be available between now and Report, because I can understand the noble Baroness's frustration.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that suggestion, because the RDAs, as we debated earlier, are unaccountable bodies. It seems very strange for there to be the possibility that a body that is supposed to be independent will be put with another body which, so far as we are concerned, is undemocratic. However, I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance. I shall read what she has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 26 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This may be a convenient moment at which to resume the House. May I suggest that the Committee not begin again before 8.25 pm? I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Faith Schools

Lord Taverne: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the extension of faith schools.
	My Lords, one aspect of the education White Paper that has not had the attention it deserves is the projected increase in the number of faith schools. I believe this would be a mistaken and deeply retrograde step. I will not argue that we should abolish existing faith schools. I recognise that many of them have high standards, although this is mainly because they are selective. To abolish them would be a negative approach, but I believe that faith schools are undesirable both in principle and in practice.
	Let me start with the principle. The American constitution got it right: religion should not be taught in schools. That is an important part of the separation of Church and state, which itself has been a crucial element in the progress of liberal democracy. Although the Church of England is the established Church in this country, for all practical purposes this is a secular country. When I say that we should not teach religion in schools, I do not mean that children should not be taught about the Bible, as that is part of our culture. I personally support teaching children about other religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. I think it is important that they should realise, for example, the important part that Islam has played in the history of civilisation, and that at one time it was the centre of learning and much more tolerant of other faiths than contemporary Christianity.
	Teaching about religion is, however, different from teaching religion. One of the most important tasks of education is to teach us to think. To think means to question, and to question means to be taught not to accept blindly what one is told and what one should believe. Teaching people to think is the opposite of indoctrination. Isaiah Berlin rightly called the Enlightenment one of the best and most hopeful episodes in the history of mankind. It was a time when the Church lost its authority to tell us what to think and when reason replaced superstition. Reason means replacing certainty with doubt. A willingness to question authority and to ask for evidence is one of the most important legacies of the Enlightenment.
	Faith schools exist to promote particular faiths, not Enlightenment values. Church of England schools exist, as the Archbishops Council said in 2001, to promote the mission of the Church of England to children. Catholic schools exist to reinforce Catholicism and Muslim schools to promote Islam. That is essentially their raison d'être which distinguishes them from other schools. They do not teach children to question these faiths or to make up their own minds whether or not to accept these religious beliefs. Do the new evangelical schools in the north-east teach children to question the truth of the Bible? Are they to be taught creationism? Do Muslim schools teach any of their pupils ever to question the Koran? To teach a faith is to teach children to believe and not to question, let alone to allow room for doubt.
	The existence of faith schools assumes that children are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, not the children of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim parents. I believe that this is no more justified than treating children as Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat children. In the end, religion, like politics, should be a matter of individual choice, not imposed by indoctrination at a tender age. Of course most children are influenced by their parents, but schools should encourage them to open their minds, and that should be the goal of a liberal education—to prepare children for life in a liberal democracy.
	I turn next to the practical objections. Surely there can be little doubt that faith schools are divisive. Many of them teach tolerance of other religions, but I put the question: have separate faith schools in Northern Ireland brought the communities closer together or have they had a divisive effect? Have they led to a greater understanding of the respective Catholic and Protestant viewpoints? Who can doubt that segregation in schools has not helped to reduce hostility between the two communities and a lack of understanding of the other's attitude? Indeed, one of the more encouraging signs of the past few years, which has been widely welcomed by the less partisan, is the increase in the number of integrated schools.
	Faith schools over-emphasise religious identity. They encourage children to see themselves in terms of their religion. Faith schools mean that children are less likely to meet young people from different religions and ethnic backgrounds, to play with them and make friends. Yet ignorance about different communities can only aggravate racism since one of its root causes is fear of the unknown.
	I am worried about the gradual intrusion into this country of the American religious right, with its profound intolerance of the values of the Enlightenment. It is lush with funds and keen to proselytise. Can the Government guarantee that it will not, by one means or another, gain a foothold in our education system through this projected expansion of faith schools? The new academy schools in Newcastle and Gateshead are not a good augury.
	Above all, I am worried about the large projected increase in Muslim schools. If there are to be more Catholic schools and Church of England schools, of course we cannot refuse new Muslim schools. But these schools will increase the isolation of a community that is already the least integrated into our society. Religion already divides Muslims from the rest of society by dress, the intensity of their religious observance, and some social attitudes, especially their attitudes towards women. As the Ouseley report on Bradford found in 2001, monocultural schools add to social exclusion and racism.
	What effect will more Muslim schools have on girls? This is surely one of the most important issues. Women of Asian heritage have been some of the strongest opponents of religious schools. As the London South Asia Solidarity Group said in 2002:
	"We believe that single faith schools will mean more discrimination and a greater stranglehold of the most conservative, anti-women and communal individuals over our children's education and our communities as a whole".
	Is that what the Government are prepared to accept?
	Let me return to the Enlightenment. At present we are seeing a reaction against Enlightenment values, a march of unreason, a rejection of the evidence-based approach to a number of current social issues. We see a proliferation of quack remedies and of sellers of snake oil. These trends are dangerous because if we reject evidence and reason and go back to the superstitions that reigned before the Enlightenment, how, for example, can we deal with the chauvinist and the racist? It is vital that our schools teach pupils to think critically and give children at least some immunity against fundamentalism and other forms of credulity.
	I am all for cultural diversity. But schools should be a place for integration, not segregation—for the liberation of the spirit, not indoctrination of any kind. I wish we had no faith schools at all. It is too late for that. But at least we should say: no more.

Baroness Corston: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, on securing this debate. If I was starting from scratch, I would not set up faith schools either. This view was reinforced when as a member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body I took part in an inquiry into non-denominational education. In two particular parts of the United Kingdom—to a lesser extent the west of Scotland, but to a very great extent, Northern Ireland—the segregation of children has actually exacerbated sectarianism. Yesterday I visited the City Academy in Bristol, in my former constituency. Children from all communities, large numbers of them Muslim, are benefiting from a fabulous education based on the human rights principles of tolerance and respect. But my children went to a Church of England primary school and I cannot say in all conscience that, "Well, it was OK for them to attend a Church of England primary school but it is not OK for other people to go to similar schools".
	Towards the end of the 1990s in Bristol there was a growing clamour within the Muslim community for a Muslim school. As a local Member of Parliament and particularly since I represented an area containing the largest population of Muslims, I was naturally lobbied to support the proposal. Two things struck me. The first was that the people calling for the school were always men; that has to be acknowledged. The second rang grave alarm bells for me during the 2002 general election when, while visiting the biggest mosque in Bristol, I was specifically asked whether I would support Muslim schools. Before I could open my mouth, one of the chief proponents said: "We don't mind what happens to our boys, but we do want this for girls". I then visited some Muslim girls attending secondary schools in Bristol and asked them whether they would like to go to the Muslim girls' school in Gloucester. They all said no, they wanted to remain in their schools where they had a choice over what kind of dress to wear and what kind of education to pursue. They also wanted to learn not only about Islam, but about Guru Nanak's birthday, Easter and other religious festivals.
	All this led me to think about the profile of immigrant communities. My maternal grandparents came from Ireland and expected my mother and her sisters, growing up in this country, to be imbued with the values of rural Ireland. That led to a considerable clash within the family, which is very common among immigrant groups. Films like "East is East" and "Bend It Like Beckham" have famously and hilariously explored these issues. But there does seem to be a strong gender element to the calls for Muslim schools. While I do not know what is happening everywhere else, I do know that within Bristol the people who want them are male, while many of those who do not are the girls themselves. So I say to the Government, to my noble friend on the Front Bench and his colleagues: be very careful that this is not just about the social control of women.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, one of the gravest mistakes made by the Government in 1997 was to let it be known that they would consider sympathetically state funding for more religious schools. When I was Secretary of State for Education, I had no requests from either the Anglican Church or the Catholic Church for new schools. In fact, several were being closed at the time. I did receive requests from evangelical Christians, from Muslims and from Jews. I turned those requests down. I did not do that because I am a humanist. Indeed, I am an Anglican. I went to a Church of England primary school, Holy Trinity up in Southport. We went to church twice a year and were taught some Bible stories. I was certainly told that I was not one of the elect, but my experience framed the sort of Anglicanism with which I am comfortable. There was no passionate intensity or proselytising zeal; rather there was devotion, kindness and forgiveness.
	I, too, believe that there should be a spiritual aspect in children's education. Indeed, in the preamble to the Education Reform Act, which I put on the statute book, there is a recognition of the word "spiritual"—it is in the very title of the legislation. I ensured that that was implemented in the Bill by providing for local community SACRE committees to come together to agree the terms of religious observance recognising all religions.
	I regret that the Government have adopted their policy because I think that the new faith schools—rather unlike the one that I went to—have become very exclusive. That is what they wanted to do and that is what their proponents wanted from them, which is regrettable. So what can the Government do? First, they should not give approval to any more faith schools. Secondly, I hope that they will say to those schools that have been approved that they expect a quota of at least a third of students admitted to be drawn from other religions. I would give the schools two years to comply. The Government are quite versed in quotas—they are rather keen on them—in other aspects of the education system, so this will not be an unfamiliar process for them. If the schools do not reach that target within, say, two years, the funding should be withdrawn. Thirdly, these are the most selective schools in the country. The Government have recognised that. In one of the concessions that Mr Blair made this week he said that faith schools would no longer interview parents. However, that is a meaningless concession. The communities know where the faith schools are; the teachers know where their pupils are going to come from; and many can be selected by surname rather than by interview.
	I do not speak in any way from an anti-religious point of view, as I have made clear. However, particularly in a week when our society in Britain has been under considerable pressure in one way or another, those communities and religions that have come to our country, which we welcome, should accept that they should live within the broad British tradition—and that broad British tradition is one not of exclusion but one of inclusion, of tolerance, of forbearance, of hearing the other person's point of view, of give and take. Those are the qualities that we should be promoting today in our society; we should not be dividing children at an early age on account of their religion.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for introducing the debate. I begin by declaring an interest—more than one—in that I chair the governing body of a new city academy, which is to open formally this Friday. It is the first academy to be jointly sponsored by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church in Liverpool and it is the first academy to take the environment as its specialism. It serves the local community and arose out of the New Deal for Communities programme. The Churches became natural partners with the local community because the Church in Liverpool—as elsewhere—has a proven and trusted track record in education.
	Contrary to what the noble Lord said, faith-based education is not about propaganda or indoctrination. It simply recognises that the exploration of faith throughout the curriculum is integral to the formation of the whole person. As human beings we possess a variety of faculties—mental, emotional, physical, moral, spiritual and social—and an education that engages with all these capacities serves to educate the whole person, critically and spiritually. So I beg to differ with the noble Lord, especially with his view that religion should not be taught in schools. I have just returned from America, where I met many people who deeply regretted that particular stance being taken in that country.
	In a multi-faith society, where religion can be all the more important to the marginalised, it is best that such faith schools are invited into and sustained within the state provision so that there can be proper monitoring of the curriculum, proper access for the local neighbourhood, proper accountability to the community and proper integration into our society. Unless you are going to outlaw private faith-based schools, such schools in the minority communities are here to stay and show every sign of growing. Surely it is better to have such schools within the state provision as a means of integration and cohesion than to keep these schools and their communities on the margins of our society.
	The Church of England is committed to inclusiveness. This historic position was re-emphasised recently in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to the Church of England. We see evidence of this all the time, with, for example, members of the Jewish and Muslim communities choosing to send their children to our schools because faith is integral to education and explicitly respected. Again, my own academy has an admissions policy where priority is given to local young people within the New Deal area regardless of their faith affiliation. Residence is the only qualification, apart from special needs. Indeed, two-thirds of all the new Church of England secondary schools serve disadvantaged communities. This is consistent with our historic ideals of being biased to the poor.
	The origin of the Church's involvement in education was to serve the children of the local parish, and especially the poor. It is true that, as the state rightly took responsibility for the education of the nation's children, the scope of the Church's involvement consequently narrowed. Now that the Government have opened wider the door to a new partnership with the Church and other faith communities, we are recovering our original mandate to serve the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Parents choose faith schools, especially in those areas of multiple deprivation—and I speak from a diocese of which 45 per cent of the parishes are in urban priority areas. I am delighted that we include the school of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the diocese of Liverpool at Holy Trinity, Southport. These faith schools are in some of our most deprived areas, and parents from these deprived areas choose these schools because of the standards they achieve, the values they share and the commitment of the staff—which, in many cases, is strengthened by the very faith that is integral to the education of the whole person.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I respectfully remind your Lordships that this is a timed debate and that Back-Benchers have been allocated three minutes. This means that when the clock shows three minutes, speakers are actually into their fourth minute.

Baroness Morgan of Huyton: My Lords, this is a valuable, if short, debate. I am particularly pleased to speak after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, because I am very interested in the new Francis of Assisi school, to which I shall turn in a minute.
	I begin by asking what parents seek when they are looking for a school for their children. I think we basically agree that, ideally, we want it to be local, with a great head teacher; with a strong ethos and clear social and behavioural norms; with clear boundaries and disciplinary codes based on punishment and reward which are understood and operated by all the adults; with good relations between the staff and students; with a strong pastoral system; with high and/or improving standards and high aspirations set for all the pupils; with strong expectations of parental input into the school and openness to parents; and with it being a part of the community. If a school has got all of the above, the chances are that it is oversubscribed.
	But in which schools are these attributes to be found, especially in inner cities? I think we need to recognise that they are often found in faith schools, particularly in inner cities. That is not, by any means, the case in all faith schools—and absolutely not only in faith schools—but something is going right in many faith schools. Often this is a combination of a strong ethos permeating the whole school. That is not necessarily, or even primarily, a specific faith ethos; it is wider than that. I think the effect of being a voluntary-aided school can help in a couple of ways. There are more freedoms, both real and often just perceived, for the head and the governing body. That tends to attract the best of both.
	I have to confess, however—this point has been raised by other noble Lords today—that I feel uneasy about two aspects of some faith schools. First, the selection procedures must be fair and transparent, but we all know that at times that is not the case. I welcome the proposals to end interviews, but I think we need to go further. Secondly, I am nervous of single-faith intakes in a minority of schools. These cannot help to promote tolerance or cohesiveness. That is why the Liverpool academy is so exciting. As someone who went to school in Liverpool, I think it an amazing step forward to have Anglican and Roman Catholic education brought together.
	I am also interested in the longer-term prospect that academies and trust schools may allow for multi-faith schools, going even wider than the Liverpool experiment. I talked recently to an MP who was concerned about the number of pupils in his constituency going to independent Islamic schools. He said that the parents largely wanted what they called moral and decent schools—schools with rules, respect and results. They did not, for the most part, necessarily want independent or even mono-faith schools. Therefore, I hope that one outcome of the current discussion of the schools White Paper will be to allow the prospect of new schools in the state sector that can meet this demand and offer high-quality education to more pupils in a multi-faith way.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for initiating this debate. I am in agreement with much of what has been said, particularly that non-Christian faith schools are likely to draw their pupils from fairly close-knit communities. There is a danger that such schools can become introspective, ghettoised and a nucleus for the fomenting of violence. However, if largely on this account the expansion of faith schools is seriously curtailed, will we not be in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Such curtailment will affect all the Christian Church schools as well.
	This country can indeed be proud of its Church schools. They were enshrined in the Education Act 1944, thanks to the foresight of R A Butler, as he was then, and replicated in the Education Act 1996. The Human Rights Act 1998 says,
	"the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
	I speak as a Roman Catholic in respect of Catholic schools. However, virtually all I have to say will apply similarly to Church of England voluntary-aided schools, as so eloquently enunciated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. Catholic Church schools are truly comprehensive; they have resisted the grammar school routes and they welcome children of every ability, including those with special educational needs, and of every race and mix. The vast majority of Catholic schools which are oversubscribed select only on the basis of religion. Here I take issue with my noble friend Lord Baker and, indeed, with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. All the Christian denominations in the United Kingdom which have Church schools have a tradition of religious tolerance and, certainly with regard to the Catholic ones, pupils are encouraged to understand and respect faiths other than their own. The right reverend Prelate referred to the large number of Muslim parents who send their children to Church schools for these reasons. There is one particular advantage which Church schools represent. They tend to have a catchment area larger than those of community schools, with all the advantages of population mix which that will bring.
	I hope that I do not portray the Christian Church schools as morally superior to others where the pupils tend to come from an ethnically homogeneous community, sharing the same social background. It is simply that Church schools, for reasons partly of history and partly through the place of the Christian faith in the community in the 21st century, have an inclusiveness among their pupil mix which, I suggest to the Minister, it would be tragic—dare I say disastrous?—to inhibit.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I should perhaps state my interest. I am a secularist and a humanist and I do not support the idea of faith schools; I believe them to be damaging to social cohesion. It is often claimed that they increase parental choice, but the evidence is that parents and the general public just want good, all-round neighbourhood schools. Many think that separating children according to religious belief is wrong, as wrong as separating them according to colour or accent. Others think that the proper place to teach religion is at home or in Sunday school.
	It is not surprising that the large number of publicly funded Christian schools has led to members of other faiths demanding public funds for their schools. But the requirements of religious leaders should not override the needs of children for an education that opens windows on a wider world. Culture and beliefs can be transmitted at home. There is often a gulf between the religious segregation wanted by older generations and religious leaders and what young people themselves want. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, found when he reported on the situation in Bradford. He found inspiring the desire among young people for better education and more social and cultural inter-reaction. They realised that being taught in religious ghettos is not a good preparation for life in a multicultural society.
	Others in the Muslim community take a similar view. Many Asian women's groups are not in favour of single-faith schools because they think it will mean more discrimination and a greater influence of reactionary clerics over children's education. There is also evidence that many young Muslim women are resentful of the constraints exercised upon them by the clerics in their communities. As one said in a recent TV interview, "I believe in democracy, but for me that must include gender equality". That is not an idea that appeals to many Muslim clerics.
	In Northern Ireland it is clear that segregation of children by religion in schools has contributed to segregation in the wider community. There has been an increase in the number of integrated schools there, and this has been welcomed, as indicating a desire for peace and reconciliation.
	Our Government, however, seem committed to faith schools. We can at least ask that the schools should be non-selective, making their intakes more truly inclusive. Could we not reduce the desire for separate faith schools by making community schools more inclusive and more accommodating? I do not believe there should be an expansion of faith schools.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I support faith-based schools; I am thoroughly in favour of them. That said, I go along with my noble friend Lord Baker from then on. The current situation is completely unacceptable. Faith-based schools have become agents of social division and social exclusion. I see a great deal of what is going on as editor of the Good Schools Guide, and I am delighted that the schools that the Church of England is opening now are not faith-selective. But some of the ones it operates and has operated for a long time are not only faith-selective but also eye-wateringly selective on a social basis. They admit almost entirely middle-class children by setting complex admissions requirements that it is very unlikely anyone outside the middle class will ever pass. I find this unacceptable. I do not want to see an increase in that kind of division within society. We have to do something serious about the level of division that we have now.
	I am very attracted by my noble friend's suggestion that, to qualify for state funding, any school that exercised religious selection in its intake would have to show that a certain percentage—a third, say—of its intake was of some other religion or none. In other words, a third of its intake would not be subject to any form of religious selection. That would be a very good filter on the kind of education in a particular school; the school would have to be run in a way that attracted parents who were not of its religion. That would cause no difficulty to the vast majority of Anglican and Catholic schools. It is no surprise to me that the great Catholic public schools have a very high percentage of children who are not Catholic but whose parents choose that kind of education for them. That applies even more to the great Anglican public schools, which have no difficulty in accommodating other religions extremely well.
	It would greatly strengthen the religious tradition in schools to open up what I consider a very high-quality and useful moral education to people whose parents do not happen to have gone every day to Mass for the past five years, which is the common requirement in state Catholic schools in London. We will have a chance to attack this issue in detail in the forthcoming Bill. I look forward to it.

Lord Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate and declare my chairmanship of a diocesan education board.
	Within the diocese of St Asaph are 54 Church in Wales primary schools. Many are small schools in rural areas; some are in isolated upland communities. About one quarter of them use the medium of Welsh. Some of our heads and staff are Roman Catholics. Wrexham, in north-east Wales, is the site of a positive extension of faith schooling: a shared faith high school, Roman Catholic and Anglican, will be the first in north Wales. The foundation will be the existing, excellent St Joseph's High School. The two bishops, the right reverend Edwin Regan and the Church in Wales's right reverend John Davies are close collaborators. The Welsh Assembly Government have been generous in this £10 million project.
	Those schools bring an extra dimension to the education of our children. In many cases, they are in far-flung, hilly areas. They are at the very heart of these small communities. Truly, the Church offers a very special gift there. No conditions for entry are made and most schools have been in place for generations. These schools are places of happiness and security as well as learning. And there is worship. They are in great contrast to the equivalent urban school by way of landscape, culture and society, which is essentially agrarian. But both environments in the diocese promote the welfare of the young; promote the disadvantaged and help the vulnerable. I have seen that with my own visits. These faith schools do much good.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Taverne for instigating this debate. He put his case about as effectively as it could be put and I am not at all deaf to many of the points that he made. However, I must describe myself as a low ecumenical Anglican—Anglican educated. My grandson goes to the same Anglican primary school as I did. The arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, are too theoretical for my liking. We start from where we are and we have 4,500 Anglican primary schools—let alone other faiths—and 200 secondary schools. The Anglican Church committed itself in 2001 in the report referred to by the right reverend Prelate, The Way Ahead, to creating 100 more secondary schools within five years and 120 are already created or en route, so the Church is extremely active.
	Then there is the question of pragmatism. Why do so many of our fellow citizens want to send their children to faith schools? It is not because they are doctrinaire or because they teach creationism and it is certainly not because they are divisive as the noble Lord said they were. It is because they are good schools. To adapt Cromwell's ringing phrase, they know why they exist and they love what they know. They are spiritual, have a strong ethos and are caring, gentle and effective educationally. How on earth it would be in the interest of this nation to sweep that aside, as you effectively would if you pursued the suggestion of noble Lord, Lord Taverne, I do not know.
	Having said that, I accept many of the points already made by my noble friend and by the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Lucas, and other speakers. I accept that there is a degree of potential divisiveness, particularly in relation to Muslim schools, because of the circumstances in which they exist. In saying that, I do not for a second wish to imply that that is the intent or design of those who set up and run those schools; it is not. But I did rather warm to the notion advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that we might experiment with some interfaith schools—why not? I had a part in establishing integrated education in Northern Ireland, but those schools were Catholic and Protestant and did not involve other faiths. Wonderfully successful though those schools are—and may there be more of them—why not have some interfaith schools?
	I also call upon the Church of England to do much more to ensure that its schools follow the precepts in The Way Ahead by having a higher proportion of non-Christian and non-belief pupils, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested. It should plot the achievements of those schools in terms of their mixed entry. I also urge the Church of England to encourage public and independent schools to practise the second commandment, which is to love their neighbours as themselves. Too few of them engage actively with their neighbouring state schools. That would be of great assistance to us all. With those few remarks, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for this debate.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. Some years ago, I visited a project in Northern Ireland where children of both denominations were sent to the United States for some weeks. They came back and I attended a reunion of the parents and the children who had taken part in the project. As I wandered round this hall in Dungannon, I was dismayed at the number of parents of one faith who had never had a cup of tea with parents of the other faith. What we have in Northern Ireland is a divided society. I am not saying that integrated schools in Northern Ireland would solve all the problems of that society, but, goodness me, they would certainly help.
	We know that children who are in a school of one faith are all too prone to demonise children of the other faith. I remember those dreadful incidents in north Belfast, when children were trying to get to Holy Cross School. The television news teams went to Lagan College, which is integrated, and interviewed some of its students, who said, "We can't understand this. We sit together in the same classrooms and we have no problem. How can they have a problem over there?". So it is not surprising that in Northern Ireland, in June 2003, 82 per cent of parents supported integrated education, 81 per cent said that integrated schools were important in building peace and reconciliation and 52 per cent said that the only reason they did not send their children to an integrated school was that there was not one in their locality. They just want a choice and the option of being able to do that.
	Although the situation in Britain is very different from that in Northern Ireland, I fear that there are lessons from Northern Ireland that we ought to learn. We have seen some of that where, willy-nilly, the schools in some of our northern towns are segregated. That may be because of housing and the accident of geography, but the fact is that when children are divided and do not sit in the same classrooms as children of another faith, we are beginning to have a divided society. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, referred to that very clearly in his report on Bradford, to which reference has already been made.
	We cannot turn the clock back. All we can do is go on in this direction. I hope that the Government will put a halt to further faith schools. Let us consider where we are and see if we can move backwards a little. We are a multicultural society; let us treat our children as people who will become responsible members of that society.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Taverne for initiating this timely and interesting debate, but speaking from the Front Bench, I also need to disassociate myself very firmly from the views that he expressed. Liberal Democrats recognise the popularity and success of many faith schools. They are oversubscribed and achieve on straight points higher than average GCSE and A-level scores. We have argued for changes in admissions procedures similar to those now being advocated in the White Paper debate, but at no time have we argued for or advocated the removal of state funding from these schools.
	Historically, our state school system in this country owes much to the early provision of Anglican, Non-Conformist and Roman Catholic schools and the partnership that they formed in the late 19th century with the state sector—a partnership that was renewed in the Butler Education Act 1944, which has generally speaking stood the test of time and proved very successful. We also recognise the logic of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 that if we offered partnership to the Anglican and Roman Catholic schools, this country could not reasonably withhold partnership from schools of other faiths. Equally, when the Government passed the 1998 Act, we had not expected that this Government would start promoting a policy which explicitly encouraged the takeover of existing community schools by faith communities and other faith-based sponsors.
	We have reservations about this policy, based on issues of social integration. We accept that the social mix of church schools is more diverse than of the foundation schools; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that of the 200 top-performing schools identified by the Good Schools Guide, 70 per cent are foundation or Church schools—and they are disproportionate in their make-up. Only 5 per cent of their intake have free school meals, as distinct from an average of 15 per cent of the country as a whole. Within the White Paper debate, there has been increasing evidence from research at the University of Bristol, at the LSE and from the Sutton Trust that when schools are their own admissions authority, a far smaller proportion of children come from low-income families than in the general run of schools.
	We also have reservations on community integration. That dates back to the Cantle and Ouseley reports mentioned by other noble Lords in this debate, after the riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford. Those reports noted the important role of schools as integrating institutions in the community and warned against a proliferation of faith-based schools, which could serve to fragment the community on ethnic lines. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, it is essential that these schools adopt the national curriculum. Those reservations were echoed recently by David Bell in his recent speech to the Hansard Society. He said:
	"This growth in faith schools needs to be carefully . . . monitored by government to ensure that pupils at all schools, receive an understanding of not only their own faith but of other faiths and the wider tenets of British society".
	We agree with that. It is why there needs to be careful reflection on whether England really needs to establish many more faith schools. But in the multi-racial society in which we now live, we think that there are times when our community schools need perhaps to be more sensitive to their multi-faith responsibilities.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for bringing this most important subject before your Lordships' House. I declare at the outset an interest as a former adviser to the Abbot of Ampleforth and that my son and daughter were educated at Ampleforth College, a school of which I am enormously proud.
	We have had thought-provoking and lively contributions, which is hardly surprising given that we are discussing a freedom highly prized in a country where education owes much to the historic partnership between Church and state. I speak of the freedom of parents to choose schools where the beliefs and values which they hold dear are well taught and permeate the very ethos of the school. That is one freedom which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, would seek to restrict—a somewhat illiberal proposal. I look forward to continuing this conversation with my noble friends Lord Baker and Lord Lucas.
	Faith schools work, helping to produce higher academic standards. Although they account for only 18 per cent of secondary schools, they represent 42 per cent of the top 200 comprehensives. In social and economic terms, their intake is little different from that of the maintained schools; one sixth of Church of England schools have more than 30 per cent of pupils on free school meals, about the same proportion as local authority schools, and they have a very similar proportion of children from the poorest postcodes.
	If you seek the key to the better performance of these schools, you will find it not in wealth or privilege or in academic selection but in the shared values and distinctive ethos which many of these schools have managed to create and which forms the best possible foundation for learning and social development. Some noble Lords have argued that faith-based schools encourage segregation. There are many examples of these schools promoting social inclusion, welcoming other faiths and building active partnerships with a range of community organisations. For example, St Peter's Catholic Primary School in Bradford is working with other schools on the "BD3 for all" programme to combat racism. Pupils from the London Oratory, almost half of whom have English as their second language, go out to schools in the local community, not one of which is a faith school, and including two special schools, to help with reading and music.
	It is also encouraging to see religious organisations coming together to create good schools in some of our most deprived areas, such as Kensington—the one in Liverpool, not in west London—where, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool has already mentioned, a new school opened jointly by the Anglican and Roman Catholic Church will build cohesion in what was once a divided city.
	David Cameron has said that when faith schools come under the umbrella of the national curriculum he is in favour of them, because parents have a right to choose how their children are educated. So we on this side of the House welcome the measures that the Government have already taken and are proposing to make it easier for faith communities to create new schools. We applaud the energy with which religious organisations are embracing the opportunity that this presents and we look forward to their growing contribution to the education, the social and the spiritual development of generations to come.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for enabling us to discuss faith schools this evening. On behalf of the Government, I should like to recognise at the outset the positive contribution made by the Church of England, the Church of Wales, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations to education in England and Wales since the advent of our state education system, and the contribution of other faith communities in more recent decades.
	The Question on the Order Paper is very specific; it asks what plans the Government have for the extension of faith schools. I shall address that Question before commenting on some of the wider issues raised, if I have time. The answer to the noble Lord's Question is that the Government themselves have no plans for new faith schools, since central government in England does not of course establish or run any schools. Rather, the Government conceive their duty as being to sustain and improve local and national decision-making structures, which enable new schools, including new faith schools, to be established when they have bona fide promoters who satisfy the local responsible decision-takers that such schools meet clear parental demands and offer high quality education within national rules governing curriculum, inclusion, inspection, accountability and admissions.
	The decision-takers with the greatest role in this process are local authorities, directly through their legal powers in respect of school planning and organisation, indirectly through their resources and their ownership of much of the suitable land for school buildings, and also through their local political leadership. Many local authorities have historically sought a diversity of provision in their area to meet parental demands, including the provision of Church and minority faith schools. Under the terms of the Education Act 2005, there must be open competitions for new and replacement secondary schools. Those competitions are open to faith promoters as to other school promoters and continue to be open to existing private schools, faith or other, to apply to join the state system, as has been the case since the Butler Act.
	We proposed in the recent White Paper on schools that these competitions and proposals, currently determined by local school organisation committees, should in future, subject to legislation, be decided by local authorities, or by local adjudicators in certain circumstances. In taking those decisions, local authorities and local adjudicators will be expected to take account of parental representations and the contribution that proposals will make to meeting local parental demands and promoting high standards, diversity and choice.
	A concern for some in the faith communities is the capital requirements when transferring existing faith schools into the state system where local decision-makers have agreed in principle to support that. We propose to make it easier for such independent schools to enter the state sector by relaxing the school premises requirements for new state schools so that they can join the state system in their existing premises, which will already have had to meet essential educational and child welfare standards. We know that this is an issue for some independent faith schools that have been unable to secure capital funding to build new premises, and we want such schools to have the option to join the state sector when that is what local decision-makers and parents wish to happen. They would then work with their local authorities to improve the standard of their premises, including with the new "Building Schools for the Future" programme.
	In the case of academies, which are directly funded and regulated by the Department for Education and Skills, it is the Secretary of State, not local decision-makers, who decides whether to allow a proposal for a new school to proceed. However, academies are almost always developed in collaboration with local authorities, which generally provide some or all of the land, which includes the eight academies with faith sponsors.
	A case in point is the excellent new Liverpool Academy in the deprived Kensington district of the city, which was developed, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool has described so eloquently, as an innovative partnership between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, with the strong support of Liverpool City Council. This is one of a number of new schools in which the Church of England has been involved following the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and if proposals for a multi-faith school were to be presented we would look at them sympathetically.
	Over the years, the number and type of faith schools have changed. Nationwide about 30 per cent of state-funded schools currently have a faith sponsor—that is, 36 per cent of primary schools and 17 per cent of secondary. To set this in a historical context, in 1946, following the passage of Butler's Act and its educational settlement between Church and state, some 40 per cent of England's state-funded schools were church schools. Of today's 7,000 faith schools, almost all are associated with the major Christian denominations, but over recent years we have seen other faiths promoting schools. In the state sector we now have 36 Jewish schools, six Muslim schools, two Sikh schools and one Greek Orthodox school—the last of those agreed before my time, but a cause of great rejoicing within my own immigrant community. I should stress that all these minority faith schools have been approved by local decision-makers and decision-making processes, and operate within the rules on curriculum, admissions, inspection and regulation within the locally maintained system.
	The answer to the specific Question posed by the noble Lord is that any expansion in the number of faith schools will not be the result of any government planning, but rather of proposals from bona fide faith promoters that meet clear parental demands and offer high quality education in conformity with appropriate local and national regulations.
	This debate raises an important underlying issue, however, which I would like to address in the time remaining: the nature of faith schools themselves. A supposition underpinning much of the debate on this subject is that faith schools are not strongly committed to inclusion. In fact, in respect of admissions, there is wide diversity of practice to meet local circumstances, and we believe faith schools as a whole are as strongly committed to community engagement and inclusion as other schools. Taking up first the issue of admissions, which the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Baker, raised, some faith schools do give an absolute priority to members of their own faith, although since 2002 it has been illegal for any school in the state system to refuse places to those of other faiths or no faith if they have places vacant. Also, we announced on Monday that it is our intention in the forthcoming Education Bill to end by law the practice of interviews as part of the admission process for faith schools to ascertain faith commitments.
	It is not the Government's view that such a policy of giving absolute priority to members of one faith or another is of itself incompatible with a community commitment and cohesion. However, many faith schools do not adopt such a policy of giving absolute priority to members of their own denomination or faith. This appears to be an increasing trend, and we welcome it. The Church of England has a particular tradition of providing schools, not just for Anglicans, but for the local community as a whole. The Archbishop of Canterbury has committed all Church of England schools to seeking to give priority for at least some places to children of other faiths or none. The House of Bishops issued a statement to this effect in 2002. It is repeated in the national guidance from the Church's board of education to all Church of England schools, and it has our support. For example, the Sir John Cass school in Tower Hamlets allocates only 20 per cent of places on the basis of Christian faith, and the majority of pupils at the school belong to the Muslim faith. There are many other schools with similar stories to tell.
	Similarly, many non-Catholics attend Catholic schools, particularly in inner-city areas. Around 14 per cent of pupils in Catholic primary schools, and 21 per cent in Catholic secondary schools, are non-Catholic. It is also a fact that, overall, Roman Catholic schools have a higher proportion of minority ethnic pupils than non-faith schools.
	With regard to schools with other faith sponsors: in Hayes, the Guru Nanak Sikh primary and secondary schools give some priority to children of any faith. As well as Sikh students, the school community also includes Christian, Hindu and Muslim students. The new city academies also provide examples of faith schools whose admission arrangements are explicitly inclusive of other faiths or none. The Liverpool Kensington Academy has already been mentioned. The United Learning Trust, a Church of England foundation of private and state schools, whose president is the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, is the sponsor of four academies of a non-denominational Christian character. Of these, only one gives a fairly modest priority to members of the Christian faith; the others give no priority on the basis of faith, but have 100 per cent local community admissions.
	The Government are strongly supportive of such admissions policies for faith schools that extend places to those of other faiths and no faith. The code of practice on admissions says on this point:
	"Faith schools can contribute to community cohesion by having admissions arrangements that are inclusive of other faiths and of all elements of the population in their local area. Some faith schools already achieve inclusiveness by designating a proportion of places for which children of their own faith or denomination will be given priority . . . this is quite different from quotas, which would reserve places solely for particular groups, and would mean leaving places empty if not enough members of those groups apply".
	There is much else I could say, but I have run out of time. In conclusion, in preparing for this debate, I read a good deal of what faith leaders themselves have said about the role of faith schools. I was particularly struck by a remark of the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, who, in talking of the distinct ethos of faith schools, dwelt on the Jewish ethos of schools in his community, but added that equally central to the successful faith school was that it should embody:
	"the principle that every child counts, that each has unique gifts, that each has a singular contribution to make, without which the world would be a poorer place".
	To my mind that sums up the mission of every school, with or without a faith sponsor. The faith communities make a significant and distinct contribution to this mission within our national education system, and, where parents want faith schools with this commitment and this ethos, we believe it right that they should be able to choose them.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 27 [Continuing powers to make transfer schemes]:

Baroness Byford: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 261:
	Page 9, line 21, after "may" insert ", by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament,"

Baroness Byford: I apologise. For some reason, my Amendment No. 261 is not in my hands.

[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Transfer schemes]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 262:
	Page 51, line 33, leave out paragraph 2.

Baroness Byford: We are concerned here with transfer schemes in the schedules. This paragraph reads as though, using its provisions, a Minister or someone acting on his behalf may ride roughshod over the normal legal protection afforded to the owner of property, rights and liabilities. I have in mind the last will and testament of any person who has a right to dispose of his belongings in the manner he chooses, provided he does so in accordance with the legal rules.
	Would this legislation allow the Secretary of State to acquire something it would otherwise not be possible to? For example, would it allow things held on behalf of the public by, say, a county council to be annexed by a government department or a regional development agency? Would it allow the Government, in pursuit of governmental targets, to move assets between non-governmental bodies? What are the safeguards that will ensure that this paragraph cannot be used to deprive individuals or sections of society of their property or rights at some time in the future, when other pressures and other moods may prevail? I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised an interesting point.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Schedule 3 allows the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to provide for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities that would not otherwise be capable of being transferred or assigned. This is essential to facilitate the smooth transfer of property currently held by English Nature and the Countryside Agency when they cease to exist. In some cases the terms on which the property rights or interests are held prevent alienation or transfer to third parties. This would apply to transfers to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities or a Minister of the Crown.
	The transfer schemes envisaged by the Bill are intended to overcome this difficulty. They will ensure a smooth transition to the new bodies and avoid any uncertainties over the rights and liabilities associated with their property on the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency. It is also important that the Secretary of State is able to certify the changes that have taken place and that this amounts to conclusive evidence of the changes specified.
	We would be in no position to deny individuals in this regard. We can move assets that are named NDPBs. As this is a complex area I will expand on it in writing but I think that the noble Baroness's fears, while understandable, are groundless. As I say, I shall write on the fine detail of the law but I give her an assurance and hope that she feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister for offering to write to me. This is a slightly technical area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Interpretation]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 263:
	Page 10, line 27, leave out paragraph (d).

Baroness Byford: With this amendment we seek clarification from the Government. In this part, public authorities have a right to request advice from Natural England and a duty to inform it if that advice is not taken. They are to receive messages from the commission and will be monitored on how they implement their policies in a rural context.
	The definition of "statutory undertaker" is contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That Act may be modified or amended by any piece of legislation. Such alteration might affect the definition of "statutory undertaker" in certain contexts. Would all such changes automatically bring the new definition into the context of this Bill? Were providers of electronic networks and cable television to be included for some other purpose, would they also be included for this? I beg to move.

Lord Carter: A technical matter will be of interest to the Committee in this regard. The noble Baroness referred to amendments made to Acts by other Bills. Along with others I have for years campaigned for a website, Statutes in Force, to enable you to get up-to-date Acts with all their amendments noted, whether those amendments were made by regulations or whatever. I am pleased to say that, following correspondence with the Law Commission, this will be available from the spring this year. I believe that all amendments going back to 1991 will be included. I understand that you will be able to call up an Act of Parliament and see all the amendments that have been made to it. They will be incorporated in the Act and you can read it without having to do the scissors and paste job that we have all done for years. That may help to assuage some of the noble Baroness's fears.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank my noble friend Lord Carter. I say to the noble Baroness that we do not wish to create a different approach whereby Natural England can advise some public bodies but not others, as the amendment envisages. Statutory undertakers, which include the water industry, are important bodies that can affect the natural environment in both good ways and bad. It is important that Natural England is able to deal with statutory undertakers on the same footing as others, and where necessary provide advice. All our public bodies should—and, I hope, would—wish to play a full part in delivering our vision for the natural environment. The wording we have used is also consistent with the definition of "public bodies" in other legislation. The definition applies to this Bill only. Definitions in other legislation will not affect what is in this Bill as it stands. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness but it is one of those areas where she may welcome clarification in writing.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his comments. The website will make a difference. At the moment the only way one can tackle this matter is by consulting Butterworths and that takes time. I am grateful to him for indicating that the new facility will be available to all noble Lords as from spring this year.
	The noble Baroness may wish to return to my next point at a later stage. I highlighted two extra providers—the electronic networks, which are springing up everywhere and which I presume fall within the framework of statutory undertakers, and cable TV. One would not necessarily think of them as statutory undertakers but I assume that even the newest and most modern ones are regarded as such. I am grateful for the noble Baroness's comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Joint Nature Conservation Committee]:
	[Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 266:
	Page 54, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) One member shall be appointed for two years, two members for three years and two members for four years.
	( ) The Secretary of State may re-appoint existing members, but no member shall serve longer than ten years."

Baroness Byford: My noble friend the Duke of Montrose inadvertently touched on this amendment while speaking to another group of amendments, for which I apologise. With it, we were trying to ensure that the whole board was not appointed at one stage, for example, and then leave at another stage and be reappointed. I listened reasonably carefully to what the Minister said when she included it in response to another amendment. I would be grateful if she would respond to it a bit more fully now; I do not know whether she still has the brief. The most important thing is that the commission works well and that there is consistency throughout. When one is setting up a new body, whatever it might be, there will presumably be people joining it who have been former members of the Countryside Agency or English Nature whose term of office may well be coming up to a particular stage; if the appointments are for five years, say, they may have served three years, or some may have served one year.
	I shall follow up the previous discussions on this. Will those who have, say, served four years be considered automatically for reappointment first, or is it just open to everyone? Secondly, although they are currently appointed to their positions, will they have to go through a reapplication to be considered as board members of the CRC? I hope that it is the latter, because however good they are they are joining a new body which is bringing in new responsibilities for them on a wider brief. Therefore, I hope that it is a full consultation on the usual way in which public appointments are made. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: This amendment relates to the appointment of members to the joint committee and is designed to impose specific terms on appointment to it and a maximum of 10 years for any appointee. It is a probing amendment.
	Schedule 4 does not specify the lengths of any appointments. However, the joint committee is covered by the code issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and that will not change when it is reconstituted. I am assuming that the intention is to ensure a phased turnover of appointments. While I can see how that might work in theory, here we are setting up a new committee from scratch. The JNCC will be reconstituted and some existing appointments will carry over. Following best practice, appointments have been made so that they will not all come to an end at the same time, though however well we plan these things, premature resignations can frustrate our intentions. That is a good reason in itself to retain greater flexibility. It also covers those who are appointed from the UK conservation agencies and could conceivably impinge on appointments to those bodies.
	The intention behind the amendment is at odds with the code itself, since an appointee who has served two full terms or 10 years is eligible to apply for appointment through open competition and can be appointed again if selected on merit through that competitive process. The JNCC, as I have said, is not a new body, so not all appointments will come up at the same time. Usually appointments are for three years—oh! I have inadvertently made an error in saying that the committee was setting up from scratch. In fact it is the opposite; it is continuing. I apologise to the Committee. I congratulate those who advise me for having let me know as quickly as they did.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I was having a chuckle to myself, because I was going back to the RCC when I should have been on the JNCC. Perhaps if we used the full names we would make sure that we were in the right place in the Bill at the right time. My noble friend referred to this point earlier, and we should bear it in mind. I apologise for the confusion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 267:
	Page 54, line 32, leave out "pensions,"

Baroness Byford: I hesitate to mention pensions again; it is perhaps one stage too far. We debated these amendments earlier, because they overlap with other parts of the Bill. The principle behind all the amendments that we have been debating is the same. Unless the Minister intends the word to mean something other than what is normally meant, I cannot agree that the board of Natural England should be empowered to pay a pension to any of its members.
	Empowerment to pay pensions to existing members, however, implies that the boards will take over the responsibility from another pension provider. Thus someone joining the board who, while still relatively young, is entitled to a pension from, say, the police or the Armed Forces, might be covered by this part of the Bill. Or is the Minister contemplating the possibility that the board might attract applications from senior civil servants or even ex-politicians, who would be entitled to draw a pension while fulfilling their contract with Natural England? The idea that the board might take on the responsibility for paying the pension of someone from the private sector is extremely far-fetched—heaven forbid—but I suppose that, if the permission were there, it could happen.
	It is interesting that this provision should be in place for the JNCC but not for either Natural England or the commission. That implies that JNCC employees will not be civil servants. Is that the case and, if so, why? I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This provision enables payments and allowances, including pensions, to be made to persons appointed by the Secretary of State to the joint committee, and it enables staff pension schemes to be maintained. We addressed many of these issues when we debated a similar point relating to Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities, so I will be brief. Having said that, a range of issues has been raised in relation to pensions. I shall undertake to look at all of them and write to the noble Baroness, who mentioned most of them, and I shall ensure that every other noble Lord who has taken part in the debate has a copy.
	Amendment No. 267 would remove the power in respect of pensions for appointees to the joint committee. In practice, only the JNCC chairman holds a pensionable appointment. The appointment itself may be pensionable and, in answer to another point, it does not relate to other pensions that the person may have. I am certain that, because of her questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will want me to expand on that.
	It is normal practice when making appointments to an NDPB for Ministers to decide the terms of the appointment, the remuneration and other payments, including the costs of any pension. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4, which the amendment seeks to alter, is part of the standard framework by which these arrangements are reflected in statute. If accepted, the amendment would mean that the current JNCC chairman could not, in future, be provided with a pension. Similarly, future appointments would have to be made on a non-pensionable basis, and that could either affect the calibre of potential applicants or require a substantial increase in their basic salary so that they could make their own pension provisions.
	Amendment No. 269 would stop the JNCC continuing the current pension arrangements for the staff who are presently in its employment through its company limited by guarantee.
	I am conscious that a lot of areas still need to be covered and I shall be only too happy to write to noble Lords, because pensions are a complex area when you are dealing with transfers.

Lord Carter: I shall make a point for when my noble friend writes to us all. We have used "pensions" interchangeably between meaning pension premiums and pensions that are paid after someone has retired. The Bill does not distinguish between the two; it just uses "pensions", which I presume—I am looking at the Box—means the same thing as pension premiums and retirement pensions. I am seeing nods. I think that that has led to some of the confusion, and it would be helpful if it could be spelt out. Obviously if you are receiving a salary and a pension is linked to the salary, you will be caught by the total amount of the pension premium and the tax allowances and so on. I refer back to the problem of board members, which we spoke about earlier. The remuneration that they would receive, even if they were paid a pension premium on top, would be very small indeed.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I place on record my gratitude to my noble friend.

Baroness Byford: There is nothing like the usefulness of an ex-Chief Whip.

Lord Carter: No, a former audit clerk actually.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I assure her and other noble Lords that I will not mention pensions again in this sitting. It is an important issue and certainly some of our earlier discussions got slightly heated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 268:
	Page 55, line 2, leave out ", with the approval of the Secretary of State,"

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 268, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I link it with Amendment No. 270. It would seem sensible to do so and will save a little time later because the two suggestions sit closely together.
	This is a probing amendment. Does the first reference mean that if the JNCC decides that it needs someone to minute meetings, answer the telephone or welcome visitors, it will need the approval of the Secretary of State before doing so? I am sure that it does not, as clearly that would be ridiculous. Or does it mean that if the JNCC decides to appoint a small team to prepare the position papers for its meetings, the Secretary of State must approve the chosen candidates?
	If the Bill can give Natural England and the commission the power to employ staff, surely it should extend the same courtesy to the JNCC, which is after all the body through which Natural England has to work to exercise some of its functions. It will presumably be open to investigation by the Audit Commission and pay the scales that have been approved by the Secretary of State. There should be no fear of unreasonable salaries.
	The second reference appears to negate the first. If Great Britain conservation bodies have to pay the salaries of the JNCC staff, they will be fairly concerned that no one is employed who is not absolutely necessary, thus rendering the Secretary of State's approval superfluous. If Natural England and the UK conservation bodies can be funded from the centre, why cannot the JNCC be funded in the same way? I beg to move.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: It is very important that the JNCC should have its own employees and budget. That was stated in a recent review. Prior to that it was subbed by the Great Britain conservation bodies such as English Nature, SNH and the CCW. The JNCC is a body that must represent biodiversity and conservation interests on behalf of Britain internationally. It is important that it is an independent body and can take a different line because it has a slightly different remit from the other British conservation bodies that I mentioned. It is important that it has its own budget and staff, and can carry out its role independently.

Lord Bach: I shall deal with both Amendments Nos. 268 and 270. There is a historical background to Amendment No. 268. The provision relates to employment of staff by the joint committee and the requirement for the Secretary of State's approval for the employment of staff. The joint committee was unable to employ its own staff until 1 April 2005 when a regulatory reform order gave it that power. Schedule 4 as drafted consolidates the provisions of the order into the Bill, using its wording. As I said, the provision is taken from the regulatory reform order.
	However, the JNCC already employs staff, albeit through its company limited by guarantee, which noble Lords will know enables staff to be employed without members of the joint committee being exposed to unlimited personal liability, and any necessary approval has been given. The provision as drafted is not there to enable the Secretary of State to stop the JNCC employing staff or changing the numbers of staff employed.
	The JNCC delivers two specific areas of work. First, it co-ordinates at a UK level certain functions of the conservation agencies. It is appropriate to combine those tasks. Secondly, it advises government on international matters, and again, it is appropriate that government should meet those costs. Approval has been given for the JNCC to employ its own staff.
	Amendment No. 270 is another Regulatory Reform (Joint Nature Conservation Committee) Order 2005 issue. The rationale for this provision in the original order was that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 required all funding to be made via the country conservation agencies. The JNCC could not seek direct funding for work that it undertakes on a UK-wide basis or on matters where there is no specific individual or collective responsibility. There are a number of strategic nature conservation services that the JNCC undertakes on behalf of the Government on UK-wide matters of that sort. It is generally recognised that the JNCC is best placed to advise on those and take them forward.
	The provision of an enabling power for the Secretary of State to fund the JNCC directly allows for greater transparency in its funding, reduces administration as payments are not routed via the country agencies, and is supported by the JNCC itself and our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who look to us to bear the costs of the JNCC's work on reserved matters. That is why paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 4 is worded as it is.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister and also to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his comments. Clearly, events have overtaken what I had not read into the Bill, as explained by the Minister. I will look at what he has said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 269 to 271 not moved.]
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clause 32 agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Purpose of functions under this Part]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 272:
	Page 11, line 20, after "conversation," insert—
	"( ) increasing biodiversity,"

Baroness Byford: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 273. This is an important section of the Bill, considering biodiversity.
	Amendment No. 272 follows on from earlier amendments where I drew attention to the first of English Nature's duties under the general purpose clause—it seems a long time since we were talking about that. The first duty couples promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity. On page 11, Natural England, as one of the UK conservation bodies, is charged with exercising its conservation functions through the JNCC wherever those functions raise issues, or touch on the interests, of the rest of the UK or overseas. If Natural England has a duty that couples conservation with protecting biodiversity, we wonder why the JNCC does not also have a responsibility to use its cross-border influences in promoting biodiversity alongside conserving nature.
	In Amendment No. 273 we seek to strengthen what is already in the Bill. The use of the word "understanding" in this context is interesting. It may represent something deep, possibly lasting and affective, as in "John and Mary have an understanding". It can, however, represent something quite vague and wishy-washy, as in "it is my understanding that", which is open to—indeed, invites—criticism and contradiction.
	In the context of the responsibilities of the JNCC, fostering the "understanding" of nature conservation is not capable of assessment, evaluation or even monitoring. How does one prove or demonstrate that the level of understanding has deepened, or that the amount of it has widened? If, however, one has to foster the practice, then one will show solid results, or lack thereof. The JNCC should be more than a talking shop, or even a communication node. It should be a body working to ensure progress across a number of fronts. It can only be judged if the standards it has set are capable of oversight and a degree of measurement. This is an important amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 272 refers to "conversation", which is slightly confusing and why we are all falling over it so much. It also refers to "increasing biodiversity". We certainly support this amendment. It takes us back to the debate that we had on the general purposes of Natural England, when some of us felt that nature conservation is a perhaps even passive activity. We spent a lot of time on the meaning of conservation and so on. I heard the Minister's helpful definition, but it still seems to us that increasing biodiversity is a more active role and would therefore be more helpful.
	I shall listen to the Minister's reply on Amendment No. 273 with careful attention. Does Clause 33(1)(b) refer only to the JNCC—in which case I would understand why it refers only to the "understanding of nature conservation", as that is more the JNCC's role? However, it also refers to the UK conservation bodies which include bodies charged with far wider purposes. There is a difficulty because those bodies should be fostering exactly the sort of things that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has spoken about. My understanding is that the JNCC would have the one role and the conservation bodies would have the more practical role of fostering the "practice" role, as the noble Baroness's amendment puts it. Two different roles are being talked about in Clause 33 and that leads to confusion.

Lord Bach: I have to admit that initially we found that Amendment No. 272 had some merits, but on further reflection we felt that it was a reformulation of Clause 33(1)(a) using a different form of words. The form of words that has been included within the Bill in Clause 33 is there to provide consistency and continuity with the existing framework in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which first established the joint committee. It is implicit within Clause 33(1)(a) that the JNCC is about biodiversity and that it will be promoting biodiversity as part of its core work. Therefore, we do not believe that the amendment would add significantly something that would otherwise be lacking.
	Amendment No. 273 would restrict the JNCC's role in the area of increasing understanding of nature conservation to circumstances where there was a practical, hands-on application to what it was doing. We believe that our phrasing has a wider remit and should be retained because the JNCC should be able to provide advice which has a more general application. For example, that has been beneficial in work in our overseas territories to increase understanding of endangered species.
	I should explain a little further the fit between Natural England's functions as set out in Part 1—precisely the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made—and those that it must deliver jointly with its sister bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That fit is not precise. The noble Baroness's question is whether Clause 33 should not better reflect Natural England's functions. We agree with the sentiment that we should endeavour to make the functions of the various bodies match as closely as we can. However, we have to have regard to the interfaces that the JNCC will have with bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. While this Bill could, with the prior consent of the Welsh Assembly, be used to amend the remit of the Countryside Council for Wales, it cannot make any changes to the general remits of Scottish National Heritage and the Council for Nature Conservation in Northern Ireland. All four bodies can only discharge functions through the JNCC that they already have as part of their own general remits.
	I emphasise that this does not mean that the JNCC is king and can dictate what the others are able to do; it just means that we must look at the wider picture and the complex web of relationships, of which the JNCC is a part. My view is that, by sticking to the 1990 Act's terminology, which is how I started this reply, in Clause 33 we are minimising the potential for problems in the future. It will be implicit that the relationship that Natural England has with the JNCC will mirror exactly that which English Nature currently has with the JNCC on a day-to-day basis. That is the explanation of why we think that, while this may not be perfect, it is important to remember that Natural England is one of four institutions that make up that UK-wide body, the JNCC.

Earl Peel: I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with me that there is another dimension to this. Whereas the role of the JNCC is to try to establish standards that are helpful to the various countryside agencies in coming to terms with their responsibilities, there are clearly times when one of the countryside agencies will be the lead agency on a particular subject because it has more expertise on it than the JNCC does. I think that the point is well made that, whereas the JNCC has an important role to play, it is not always the dominant partner, because other agencies will sometimes have more experience in a particular field than it does.

Lord Bach: I agree with the point that the noble Earl makes.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Of course it will be for the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to decide what to do with her Amendment No. 272. The Minister referred to the fact that the wording was drawn from the 1990 Act. I was wondering whether some of the resistance to increasing the biodiversity terminology, which, as he admits, the Government were initially attracted to, comes from the fact that in 1990 nobody really talked of biodiversity—it was an unknown term. However, that is no reason why now in 2006 we should not include it.

Lord Bach: That is a very fair point. The real point behind what I had to say was that the four bodies that make up the JNCC have to work on a common basis. While we could get the Welsh Assembly, perhaps, to change the remit of its organisation, that is not possible apparently as far as Scottish Natural Heritage is concerned, which is why we resist the suggestion in Amendment No. 272.

Baroness Byford: The Minister's last response has made my resolve even firmer. This is a slightly unsatisfactory position to be in. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and I accept the comments made by my noble friend Lord Peel. Obviously we want to increase biodiversity, or to have an awareness of it—and the noble Baroness is right to suggest that back in 1990 it was not something that was talked about.
	Do I take it from the Minister that he is content that England and Wales can do something, or try to improve things, but that Scotland can go its own sweet way anyway? It seems extraordinary that in one part of this UK-wide conservation body you cannot tighten up or improve on what you are trying to get the four parts to do. If that is so, I think that it is very sad and, I would have thought, slightly unsatisfactory.
	On my second point, I will look at Amendment No. 273 again carefully. I think that noble Lords have suggested that the issue might be more relevant to Natural England itself rather than to where it is in this particular part of the Bill. I hope that I interpret what the Minister said correctly. I know that it is just after supper, but Amendment No. 272 has been laid for some time—the typo of using the word "conversation" instead of "conservation" was in the amendment before dinner, not just after. I looked at the amendment earlier this morning and said, "Whoops! This is not very good".
	I thank the Minister for his response. I suspect that we may want to consider the issue a little further but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 273 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 274:
	Page 11, line 25, leave out "the desirability of contributing" and insert "their commitment"

Baroness Byford: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 275, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, so I shall speak to Amendment No. 274 and then listen to what she has to say on her amendment.
	My amendment would make a small but, we believe, important alteration to the functions of the UK conservation bodies and to the JNCC. The Bill states that, "in discharging their functions", UK conservation bodies must have,
	"regard to . . . the desirability of contributing to sustainable development".
	That is a very loose incentive; it is slightly casual. Our amendment would ensure that the conservation bodies have to have regard to their commitment to sustainable development. That would be in line with the promises made by Her Majesty's Government about sustainable development and it would resonate with the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. I am sure that the Committee is aware of the directive, which was adopted back in 1992. It states that,
	"natural habitats are continuing to deteriorate and . . . it is necessary to take measures . . . in order to conserve them".
	If the Government are committed to contributing to sustainable development, they must demonstrate that in the clearest terms. I beg to move.

Viscount Ullswater: I must advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 275 because of pre-emption.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We referred in passing to Amendment No. 275 when discussing the general purposes of Natural England. The Minister then explained that there was a difference between that and the role of the JNCC, which should have the primary scientific and environmental role, so that in this context "desirability" was a more reasonable word than "necessity". Having taken that to heart, I shall not move my amendment.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I, too, think that the sustainable development clause for the JNCC needs strengthening. I do not really mind which wording the Minister takes. I once sat as a member of the JNCC, which was quite strange because I was a lay person among all the scientists. I listened to a lot of the scientific talk but did not understand a lot of it. I considered my role entirely as being to put the sustainable development argument. If I had not been there, I do not think that the JNCC as a body would ever have considered anything outside the straight biodiversity conservation remit that it felt that it had. So it is important in this day and age that it has a pretty strong push to take account of the sustainable development agenda. I do not think that the current wording of the Bill provides that.

Lord Carter: I, too, am puzzled by the use of the word "desirability", because the unspoken two words after it are "or otherwise". If one considers the desirability of something, it must be possible to decide that something is undesirable. I cannot believe that the JNCC would regard it as undesirable to contribute to sustainable development, so I wonder if that word is the right one.

Lord Bach: I shall try to explain. It is important to understand the primary role of the JNCC. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned, it has an advisory role on nature conservation. Of course, as with all our sponsored bodies, we want the JNCC to have a reference to sustainable development in its remit, but that reference must be consistent with the wider role of the body itself. We want the JNCC to give advice within the context of sustainable development rather than to be constrained by it or to have to moderate it to take account of wider issues. Many of those issues include balances that might need to be struck between conservation and other objectives, and will fall to the recipients of the advice from the body, including Ministers and, in some cases, Natural England itself.
	It is worth emphasising that the JNCC is not an operational delivery body and thus has limited ability to contribute to the delivery of sustainable development at first hand. It is important that the JNCC can give objective advice based on good science, but it is also important to show how that advice might help to take sustainable development forward. We believe that that is what the current wording does.
	We are asked whether this provision is, in effect, simply window dressing. No, it is not. At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that we are keen that all our sponsored bodies should have a clear sustainable development remit, but that that must be consistent with each body's wider role. Frankly, each body has little scope to take forward sustainable development through its own activities, apart from managing the green footprint of the organisation itself, but it can put advice to others in the context of sustainable development.
	I shall give an example. The JNCC may be called on to advise on the potential nature conservation impacts of offshore wind farms. It is not for that organisation to form a view on the balance to be struck between activities that might harm wildlife on the one hand, but that might also have environmental and economic benefits on the other. It is right that the organisation can flag up those issues for those who need to decide which way to go. That is why we think that to give this body too up-front a role in the sustainable development field is out of kilter. We meant it when we referred to sustainable development in the clause, but that is as far as we take it.

Baroness Byford: I am very disappointed with that response. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Carter, for intervening. The contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, reflects how important it is that a lay person should serve on such committees in order to put forward the practical side. It is easy to be carried away by what science can or cannot do and by where we might or might not be going. I have listened carefully to the Minister's words, but I am not satisfied. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 274) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 50.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 275 not moved.]
	Clause 33 agreed to.
	Clauses 34 to 37 agreed to.
	Clause 38 [Directions]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 276:
	Page 13, line 12, after "may" insert ", by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament,"

Baroness Byford: This short amendment seeks clarification from the Government. Clause 34 is headed, "Functions of national or international significance". That should imply that the directions given by the Secretary of State to a body operating at arm's length from government will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and that is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This is a small amendment but it disguises a very important point. The same point was made in Amendment No. 261, which none of us spoke to.
	There is no doubt that the Secretary of State is gradually accruing more and more functions. This point is being examined by the committee of your Lordships' House that considers regulations. The more powers the Secretary of State has to amend Bills or carry out functions that are not scrutinised thereafter diminishes the democratic and scrutinising powers of this House. Although, as the noble Baroness says, this is a small amendment about a small matter, it is a very important point of principle which has been made before from both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches. I am sure that this will not be the last time it is made.

Lord Carter: I do not know whether the noble Baroness has looked at the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is not slow to make proposals if a Bill contains inappropriate powers. It has not recommended any need for a statutory instrument in this part of the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Powers of direction are very much reserved powers, and we hope never to have to use them. But they are part and parcel of the safeguards that are built into the framework when setting up an NDPB. We referred earlier to the circumstances in which this power could be used.
	The amendment challenges the concept that NDPBs are accountable to Ministers and, through them, to Parliament. It would allow Parliament to countermand instructions that the Secretary of State had issued. That cannot be right and would leave the joint committee not knowing what to do if a Prayer to Annul were tabled.
	A more practical consideration is the delay that may be involved. If a direction is to have value in the circumstances we discussed earlier today, the joint committee must be given the direction as soon as the Secretary of State has decided to make it. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to international conventions. The Secretary of State is bound by those conventions to which we are a signatory and would not be able to act in any manner that would otherwise be deemed illegal. In addition, given the JNCC's status as a cross-border body, any statutory instrument would doubtless need to be considered by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that this proposal could lead to very damaging delay in a case where there was a need for urgent action.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I rather assumed—although I may be assuming wrongly and she will probably correct me—that if such an emergency needed to be dealt with in a hurry there would be powers within the Government to deal with it. I had not seen my amendment as delaying anything or making it difficult if urgent action were needed. Certainly, as far as other areas of the Bill are concerned, we are increasingly worried about the powers being gained by the Secretary of State and that is why we tabled the amendment. However, there is clearly a difference of opinion and the hour is getting late. I will think about the matter further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 38 agreed to.
	Clause 39 agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Duty to conserve biodiversity]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 277:
	Page 14, line 5, leave out from "functions," to end of line 7 and insert "further the conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: We have had a preliminary canter around the course on an early amendment on an earlier evening, moved by my noble friend Lord Peel in connection with the UN convention. To mix the metaphor, that rolled the wicket for this amendment, but I should still do justice to the issue. This amendment is actively supported by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, a nature and conservation consortium which will be well known to many in your Lordships' House. It consists of 15 national organisations whose names I shall not read into the record in their entirety but which include the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and the Council for National Parks as well as societies devoted to the conservation of individual species. They have 7 million members in all and manage 398,000 hectares of land.
	One of the member organisations, which also specifically supports this amendment, is the Wildlife Trusts, the headquarters of the country wildlife trusts, with which I declared various interests at Second Reading. Both the umbrella organisations welcomed Clause 40, but wish it to go further and use the words "to further" to that end. Many public authorities take significant steps to conserve and enhance biodiversity, but the Bill limits their statutory duty towards conserving biodiversity to that familiar amulet against judicial review of "having regard to". I am engaged with similar amendments on the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill, but there the essential purpose of the Bill is directed elsewhere. Here, we are dealing with Natural England and thus need to send a stronger message than that of an amulet.
	Much more could be done than that, in conserving biodiversity—and I mean actively conserving, enhancing and restoring biodiversity. We are looking for real achievement and not lip service. I offer a number of examples at national level. Public bodies own and manage a significant amount of land that can further biodiversity. For example, the Prison Service recognises the importance of biodiversity on its estate and has conducted surveys and produced its own biodiversity action plan with different partners including English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts. In Northern Ireland, in my direct experience although outside this Bill, prisons have rabbits in profusion within the grounds, although I acknowledge that the Maze lived up to its reputation by keeping them out.
	I have alluded to the 2012 Olympic development in London, which has enormous potential to provide benefits for biodiversity with the regeneration of the land in that part of the capital. It is important that the Olympic Development Authority takes biodiversity seriously, not only in the run-up to 2012 but when looking to the future legacy. Regional development agencies can take significant account of biodiversity alongside economic development in planning for regeneration. In the Idle Valley in Nottinghamshire, the regional development agency sponsored feasibility work on a major rural regeneration project which involved significant gains for biodiversity.
	A good example of the introduction of planning conditions by local authorities to create appropriate biodiversity habitats is the Section 106 agreement introduced by Newbury District Council on the redevelopment of Greenham Common airbase. That resulted in a significant increase in the extent of lowland heathland, a priority habitat under the UK biodiversity action plan. Local authorities and other bodies can play a fuller part in furthering biodiversity conservation through the management of land holdings. For example, managing roadside verges for road safety and biodiversity or amenity grassland for recreation and biodiversity, by changing cutting regimes, can be cost-neutral or even save money while helping to enhance biodiversity.
	I give an incidental example of a potential contradiction in legislation. The Scottish Parliament is to be congratulated on the inclusion of a clear duty on public bodies to,
	"further the conservation of biodiversity",
	in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. But biodiversity does not recognise national boundaries, and there are populations of the same UK biodiversity action plan species and areas of the same UK biodiversity action plan priority habitats in Scotland and England.
	Some government departments and agencies, such as the Ministry of Defence, have reserved responsibilities; however, we understand that the MoD's land management in Scotland will come under the Scottish duty. The difference between the duty in the Scottish and English legislation could therefore result in inconsistent treatment of biodiversity. The MoD in England would be required to "have regard to" the conservation of an area of priority habitat, such as upland heathland, within its ownership, but it would have a duty to "further the conservation" of the same habitat in Scotland. Pressures on diversity in England are as intense, if not more so, than in Scotland. England's biodiversity therefore merits at least the same level of consideration and input from public authorities as it receives already in Scotland.
	Finally, in terms of examples, in my own county of Wiltshire, local authorities could be working with the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust to identify land that could be protected and where it could be restored and enhanced to create interconnected areas of habitat. The wildlife trusts in the south-west have developed a robust methodology for identifying those key areas, called Rebuilding Biodiversity. Wiltshire Wildlife Trust has played a central role in its development and adoption by other environmental bodies, including English Nature.
	Local authorities could also look at land in its stewardship—I am thinking of local nature reserves, country parks, council estates and county farms—to see how they might improve their biodiversity. Local authorities could also work with nature conservation organisations to devise and fund monitoring on indicators for local development documents. That is a requirement of the new planning system for annual monitoring reports. Much of that information is not already recorded. Local authorities could also be contributing to biodiversity in their area by investing in the voluntary sector and working in partnership with it. Wiltshire Wildlife Trust receives money from Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council for various activities. Both local authorities, for example, invest in the Biological Records Centre run by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. The records are vital for local authorities to know where the rich wildlife sites are—and, indeed, used to be. I am not saying that there are no financial contributions to this work; both Salisbury District Council and Wiltshire County Council give money, and I admire those contributions. But the conservation of biodiversity could be furthered if the amendment were to be added to the Bill.
	In conclusion, Working with the grain of nature: A biodiversity strategy for England acknowledged that if the Government are to meet their international biodiversity targets, including halting the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2010, biodiversity must be mainstreamed into all their activities. The strategy recognised that if biodiversity is to be conserved effectively, the Government will need to go beyond site protection and implementation of action plans by the nature conservation agencies. Biodiversity conservation is something that all public authorities can and should play a part in. I beg to move.

Viscount Ullswater: I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I would be unable to call Amendment No. 278.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, with great pleasure. I am happy that if this amendment were agreed to, we would not be able to pass Amendment No. 278, because I find the noble Lord's amendment much more satisfactory than my own. He has spoken eloquently of all the reasons why this public duty needs strengthening. I must declare an interest as a vice-president of Wildlife Link and a member of both Devon and Somerset Wildlife Trusts.
	The noble Lord is right when he talks of the important role local authorities can play. In my experience, as he mentioned, they often have landholdings, county farms and country parks. They also play a critical role in development control. Often what is needed even more than resources is an attitude of mind that questions all the time: "If we changed this policy, if we did things differently, how would it improve things?". In my time as a Somerset county councillor, our partnership with Somerset Wildlife Trust was one of the joys of that job, and one of the strengths in helping to move forward much of our work on the wetter holdings we had, because of the strength of the trust's experience with wetlands. I should also mention the RSPB, who played a big role in developing a whole new way of working around land, water management and so on.
	I support the noble Lord's Amendment No. 277, but I must speak to Amendment No. 279 at the same time; in particular, to paragraph (b). To interpret this a little more for noble Lords, my amendment talks of,
	"ensuring resources to gather sufficient scientific knowledge to maintain a basis on which to achieve the objectives of paragraph (a)",
	which are:
	"restoring or enhancing a population or habitat".
	The purpose of this amendment is to enable a short debate on the sad news that the three elements of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology are to be closed, and to find out what the Government's thinking is about that.
	The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is run under the Natural Environment Research Council, which controls the funding and has decided to cut its budget in this particular direction. However, the buck stops with the Government, because the Government provide funding to the NERC, so they cannot simply say, "The NERC has made the decision in the best way it can as to where the cuts will fall". It is also a government responsibility. My amendment is intended to make it clear that it should be a government responsibility.
	At a time of climate change, when what is happening to each individual species or habitat cannot be viewed as standalone, it has become evident that a database cutting across all that knowledge about individual populations, be they amphibians, butterflies, mammals or plants, goes to build an entire picture. That is why the collection of this information by such a body as the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is so critical, because it brings together the leading research establishments and gathers that information together. Just when we are realising how critical it is to have the information which enables us not only to say, "This is what's happening as a result of climate change", but to learn how to adapt to climate change and how best to protect habitats and enable species to survive some of these changes, we need the best knowledge we can get. It is for that reason in particular that this seems such a strange time for the Government to allow these centres to close. I am glad to say that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats felt equally strongly about this matter and a strong statement was made on it by the Conservative MP, Mr Peter Ainsworth, and the Liberal Democrat MP, Mr Norman Baker.
	I hope that, having heard the strong feelings that have been expressed, the Minister will say that the Government are looking into the matter. This has been a very fortuitous discussion on public authorities' duty to conserve biodiversity. It is the Government's prime duty to conserve biodiversity. That duty must start with the Government as they are at the head of all public authorities. Therefore, they should set an example in this regard. I cannot accept that the Government will lay this duty on all local authorities but then renege on it themselves, as the withdrawal of the relevant funding seems to suggest.

Earl Peel: I say a few words in support of my noble friend's amendment. When he moved it he made reference to an earlier amendment that I moved which concerned a United Nations convention. However, I believe that my amendment was a little more specific than his as it dealt with the use of wildlife. None the less, having given the matter considerable thought, I believe that the points made by my noble friend are certainly worthy of consideration. It is a brave, bold amendment and I have no doubt at all that the Minister will resist it on the grounds that it would put onerous responsibilities on local authorities.
	However, as my noble friend said, if the Government and everyone in this country are to pull together to meet biodiversity obligations, everyone has to be involved, and that includes local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was right to say that this is as much about an attitude of mind as anything else. The amendment would help people to focus on achieving what we all want. It would put a considerable onus on local authorities. It would probably put quite an onus on Natural England as regards the amount of advice that it would have to give. But we have reached a point where bravery is required if we are to achieve what we want—the enhancement of biodiversity in this country. On those grounds I support everything that my noble friend has said.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I refer to paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 279, to which my noble friend Lady Miller spoke, and the cuts in environmental research. It is not just that research establishments are being closed down. I back her all the way on what she said about the two bodies which are due to close and the impact of that on biodiversity. Further, the environmental research councils have cut the budgets of other experimental bodies—for example, the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research at Aberystwyth, which covers the whole of the UK and not just Wales. It has an experimental farm in North Wycke in Devon. Its budget has been cut and there will be job losses. That institute is engaged in research on drought resistant grasslands. It is very important that its research on climate change and the need for diversity in our grasslands continues. The organisation engages in fundamental and applied research. I add those comments to show that it is clearly not the time to cut back on those research budgets.

Baroness Byford: I support and thank my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for tabling this very important amendment. I hope that the Minister will end the evening by accepting the amendment or saying that he will take it away and think about it. As I say, this is an enormously important amendment.
	The Minister was not with us when, back in 2000, we took the Countryside and Rights of Way Act through, in which biodiversity was first mentioned and put in as an amendment, which the Government eventually accepted. It was a very bold step at that stage, and it was very necessary. In considering his response to the amendment, and the support that has been given to it around the House, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the importance that we feel attaches to this. It is easy to say, "Yes, we have in mind that we might do something", and it becomes very wordy, but the addition of "further" is enormously important. My noble friend, in introducing the amendment, said that like many others of us he had received very good briefing from the Wildlife and Countryside Link groups, which have given their support to the amendment. My noble friend said that originally it would be cost neutral and that it might save money in some cases; he is right. He added that in certain circumstances there are to be costs; but there are costs in whatever we do. Certainly, the seasons are changing rapidly in this country. We seem to have drier spells for longer, and then we seem to have heavy rains. We have sunshine and then no sunshine. If that weather pattern continues, there will be even greater pressure on the biodiversity in this country.
	I have a couple of questions for the Minister, particularly on the closure of those important research centres, which the noble Baroness referred to earlier. My honourable friend Peter Ainsworth, who I am sorry is not still with us in the Chamber, recognised the importance of those centres. When the Minister responds, will he tell us exactly what savings the Government think they will make by closing those centres? Where will the members of that skill base end up? Will they all be made redundant? That is as important as the closure of the buildings. Are they going to be reallocated to different areas? It is important for us to know that.
	My noble friend Lord Peel said that the amendment is brave. We must not lose these opportunities when they come before us. We are not likely to have another Bill of this magnitude before the House for many, many years. When we look back to the CROW Bill, the fact that we did not recognise the need for a marine section was one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and I were quite cross that we let slip by. It has been nearly six years since that Act was passed, and we have not addressed the marine side of the environment. Although a draft marine Act is planned, it may be some time before it comes before the House in the form of a proper Bill.
	We have that opportunity now. I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded by the arguments. I agree that the Government have their own international targets, and we should not shirk those. Sometimes in life one has to take on challenges that are not always comfortable. It is much easier to take the easy way out. I support the amendment, and I thank my noble friend for bringing it forward and explaining it so clearly to us tonight.

Lord Judd: Who can resist that trailer? I strongly endorse what the noble Baroness just said about the importance of the marine dimension. While I applaud the intention behind the amendment, I am not so sure that it is a strong amendment. It seems to me that it is too generalised. If we are really concerned about the root causes of the challenge to what is happening to biodiversity—we have heard climate change mentioned several times—the duty on all public authorities should be to combat global warming. Then we would be dealing with the origins of the problem rather than the symptoms. I am rather sad that the amendment deals with the consequences rather than the origins. I urge those who put it forward to go away and think about it and see whether they can bring back a stronger amendment at a later stage.

Earl Peel: I do not disagree with the noble Lord but I think that there are two separate issues, although I know that they are interrelated. Climate change is one thing but the positive enhancement of biodiversity is another. I see no reason why we should not address them both.

Lord Judd: It is fighting a losing battle—that is the problem.

Baroness Byford: I shall leave my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith to speak for himself but consistently throughout our debates he has raised the whole question of addressing the root cause.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My noble friend Lord Livsey reminds me—and I repeat it to the Committee—that, even if we were tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to include something about combating climate change, the fact is that climate change is already happening. Therefore, this is also an issue of combating the threats and adapting to them. The work carried out by the CEH, the Biological Records Centre and the UK Phenology Network was all about recording that change and trying to interpret what it means. That is why such work is so important. Even if we could stop climate change now, the effects would still be felt decades into the future. Therefore, it is critical that the Government consider this matter.

Lord Dixon-Smith: For the peace of mind of the noble Lord who was just speaking, I have every intention of bringing the issue of global warming back to the Floor of the House again at a later stage of the Bill—in a form which I hope he will find possible to support.

Lord Bach: It is late at night to be having such a passionate argument, but this is an important issue and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for having raised it. I am going to disappoint the Committee tonight and I shall try to explain as briefly as I can why that is so.
	I start with Clause 40, which places a duty on all public bodies and statutory agencies to have regard to conserving biodiversity in the normal exercise of their functions. The definition of conservation in the Bill includes restoring and enhancing habitats and populations of living species. Amendment No. 277 would change that duty to require public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity.
	Noble Lords will know that there were interesting discussions on this topic during the Bill's passage through another place. As was said at Standing Committee there, the Government are comfortable that the existing words are strong enough to encourage public bodies to integrate biodiversity into their functions. The clause as it stands aims to enhance biodiversity conservation in England and Wales through improved integration into decision-making processes in the public sector.
	Although the duty does not prejudge the outcomes for biodiversity, it should mean that decisions are more beneficial for the conservation of biodiversity than they might otherwise have been. As we are primarily trying to tackle instances where biodiversity loses out or is forgotten because it is simply not taken into account or considered, we believe that this duty is sufficient.
	An example given at Standing Committee in another place looked at local authorities and planning applications. Currently 67 per cent of local authorities do not include questions on biodiversity within their planning applications. This new duty, as set out in the clause, would address that. In short, our view is that the duty to "have regard", as set out in the clause, is the most appropriate response.
	I was asked why we are against strengthening this duty to "furthering", which appears in the amendment. We think that the provision as drafted strikes a balance between stakeholder views and provides for a duty that raises the profile of biodiversity and consolidates and clarifies existing statutory requirements without creating a new burden. With this duty—this is significant—we are trying to tackle instances where biodiversity is inadvertently damaged through not being considered in decision-making processes, and we are trying to cultivate a higher awareness of biodiversity so that positive outcomes are more likely. We have incorporated complete flexibility in delivery to stimulate innovation, so public bodies may go further if they want to. In those cases, they will realise the social, economic and environmental benefits that healthy diversity brings.
	I was reminded of the Scottish experience. Thankfully it is not my place to comment on the practice of the devolved administrations. However, public bodies in this country and in Wales would be free to go beyond the duty,
	"to have regard . . . to the purpose of conserving biodiversity".
	In some cases, we know that they do so already. The Ministry of Defence, which I know reasonably well, and which was referred to in the debate, is an example. It is developing a biodiversity strategy across the UK defence estate. It is also MoD policy that all sites with a designated or protected species must have an MoD conservation group to advise on that nature conservation interest. If it is suggested that we are not doing a great deal for biodiversity, I would dispute that. We are doing a lot. That is an apt demonstration of how the duty to "have regard" delivers real benefits for biodiversity. There is no evidence—none has been put before us tonight—that the wording of the duty is not sufficient.
	We are, in effect, being asked to tell public authorities that they have to promote biodiversity. We support and encourage the promotion of biodiversity. We expect the duty on public authorities to result in raised awareness of biodiversity issues. None the less, while it will be appropriate for some public bodies, such as local authorities, to be involved in biodiversity, it may not be appropriate for others. For example, it may not be appropriate to expect a fire authority to be involved in the promotion of biodiversity issues. The generic nature of the duty allows appropriate flexibility in delivery, and allows public bodies to implement it in the way most relevant to their functions and opportunities open to them. Adding the requirement to promote biodiversity will only add complexity to the duty and make it harder to define what a public authority has to do to comply.
	I know that there is a lot of support for local authorities' role in this field, but strengthening the duty further, as proposed in the amendment, would raise difficult questions for local authorities. I wonder whether they have been fully considered. Under such a duty, a local authority could be faced with a decision between two projects: one that is good for biodiversity, but bad in other ways; and one that is neutral. Would the authority be obliged to approve the first project? Those are the kind of issues that the courts would have to consider.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I apologise for interrupting the Minister at this time of night. He has been good about giving us examples, but that is a completely hypothetical case. Knowing most local authority functions, as I do, it is hard to see what the writer of his brief had in mind.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I cannot resist this. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to our mutual local government experience. All local government is a constant battle between conflicting interests. Nature conservation would simply be another interest to be taken into account, as public authorities already have to deal with and decide between conflicting interests. That is an entirely normal state, and the Minister—with the greatest deference—is, as far as I can see, simply raising a hare, for the sake of persuading us to chase it.

Lord Bach: How normal would that process be, if this amendment was carried and there was a legal requirement to further biodiversity? I, too, have a number of years of local authority experience, although never as exalted as in a county council, unlike my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. What difference would it make? It would mean that the biodiversity argument would win on every occasion—or most occasions. If it would not, what is wrong with the "have regard" in the present law?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I will give an example of how it would make a specific difference. When the Improvement and Development Agency or the Audit Commission come to inspect a local authority, they are primarily inspecting the things it has a statutory duty to do. Biodiversity is therefore always much further down the list. For the local authority to raise it up the list, knowing full well that that will count against it for the inspection, means that biodiversity is not something that a local authority can reasonably concentrate on.

Lord Bach: I am grateful, but the whole argument about local authorities is hypothetical because we have not yet changed the law.
	I notice that I was immediately interrupted, quite properly, when I dared to mention local authorities. However, no one got on their feet so quickly when I mentioned the example of the fire service, which is a public authority. It would have to change its habits and customs if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, went through. I suppose I have rather invited the interruption that is now going to happen.

Baroness Byford: It is this Government who are proposing to alter totally how local government works. For example, the Minister has mentioned the fire service, but I could mention the police service. Many of us in this Chamber are apprehensive about some of the proposals for merging police forces. Those who live in rural areas, in particular, worry that the infrequency with which they see people on patrol in their areas—you can understand why, because priorities have to be taken—is indicative of the Government adding to local authorities' difficulties. In addition, the Government put extra burdens on local authorities and do not fund them accordingly.

Lord Bach: We were talking about biodiversity, as I understood it, not the police force. I was giving the fire service as an example. What would be the benefit of putting this obligation on the fire service?

The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I recognise that it is late at night—I am normally one for saying we should go to bed at 10 pm. What duties is the fire service involved with that are different from a local authority, which has highways and all sorts of recreation grounds and things to care for? The fire service may have a garden around the fire station, but what other responsibilities does it have that would encompass this?
	"Having regard to" and "considering" can be just paper exercises. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, mentioned the Audit Commission. As long as it is written on paper, that is all right—you have done it. I know this as a food producer. You can just go on and ignore it after that.

Lord Bach: I understand what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, says. But my comment was that it may not be appropriate to expect a fire authority to be involved in the promotion of biodiversity issues. It would be appropriate if this amendment was carried. I do not think the implications of that have necessarily been sufficiently thought through.
	We want to allow flexibility in the provision, so that public bodies can implement their biodiversity programmes as appropriate. We do not want to force them to do something inappropriate, which is why the expression "have regard to" in the clause is appropriate and apt.

Earl Peel: I remind the Minister that when we were addressing the general purposes of Natural England in an earlier clause, I moved an amendment to the effect that Natural England should have regard to the economic and social well-being of those who live and work in rural areas. I remember very well that the Minister asked how one makes a judgment on whether the obligation of "having regard" has been adhered to. I reverse that and ask the Minister how, under the Bill, he would judge whether a public authority has had regard to the issues? Exactly the same argument applies.

Lord Bach: It is possible to measure whether a public body has had regard to biodiversity from its decisions and the policies that it adopts.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We could continue this argument for a long time. If it is inappropriate, as the Minister has said, it is clearly pointless to have regard to even if a nominal duty is laid because of the breadth of the definition of what a public body or authority is. We are on dangerous ground and there is no satisfactory resolution to this in either the form of words that the Minister is proposing or, possibly, in the words of this amendment. We ought to go away and think about this. The Minister is finding himself defending the indefensible and it may be that we are attacking the unassailable. We could waste a great deal of time. The evening is passing and this is not going to help anybody.

Lord Bach: I think it is the latter, rather than the former, but I am entitled to that opinion. I am sure that we will return to this important issue. I have already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for having raised it. It is interesting that this is considered to be the difficult choice—the one that is found in the amendment—as opposed to trying to look at the practicalities of the issue so far as public authorities are concerned.
	I shall turn to Amendment No. 279 and make some things absolutely clear. The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology's parent organisation is the National Environment Research Council, abbreviated, like the name of the Bill, to NERC. The council has put forward proposals to restructure the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Under the new proposals outlined in the council's statement of intent, four sites—Bangor, Edinburgh, Lancaster and Wallingford— would become the focus of the CEH's work. Four other sites—at Banchory, Dorset, Monks Wood and Oxford—would close. The CEH administrative headquarters would move from Swindon to Wallingford.
	NERC's review was informed by the CEH business plan, which focused on the need for a more sustainable future and a thorough review of CEH science by the research council's science and innovation strategy board. I remind noble Lords that NERC's plans for the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology are currently out for consultation until the middle of February and therefore no decisions have yet been made. It will be for the NERC to consider all the evidence and the views on the potential impact of the proposals. There is currently wide consultation with stakeholders and staff on how the proposals can best contribute on a sustainable basis. That consultation will help the research council fully to evaluate the proposals. The proposed closure of specific sites does not imply that the research or monitoring carried out at those sites will be discontinued. I understand that NERC will take due account of all the evidence and views expressed in consultation on the potential impact of the proposals.
	So far as savings are concerned, it is not a matter, certainly at this stage, for government; it is for the research council. Anyone who suggests that decisions have been taken is mistaken.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I would like to clarify a matter with the Minister. In the first instance, clearly it is a decision for NERC. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, a question, to which he replied:
	"The Government provide funding to the . . . NERC . . . to support research and related postgraduate training in environmental sciences in the UK".—[Official Report, 18/1/06; col. WA108.]
	If the Government are the primary funding body, surely they have a fundamental role in saying what that government-provided money should be used for. My submission is that the Government should not be saying that this is a decision for NERC, but that they should be taking a more active interest in what appears to be going to fall by the wayside if these cuts are carried through.

Lord Bach: These things must be done properly. The research councils are given a degree of independence, even if their funding comes largely from government. It is for them to make their decisions. Otherwise, what is the point of having research councils? So, let things happen one thing at a time. Let the consultation period end and let the research council meet and decide what it intends to do. Of course the Government have an interest in it—the noble Baroness is absolutely right—but to lay into the Government at this stage is slightly premature.
	I should deal with the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 279 before I finally sit down and let people go home. Clause 40(3) provides that the conservation of biodiversity should include,
	"restoring or enhancing a population or habitat".
	It is drafted in this way to clarify that the conservation of biodiversity should not be restricted to preserving our wildlife and habitats; it can also include restoring them or increasing their population or area. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of what conservation of biodiversity should include.
	The amendment seeks to broaden this definition of conservation to include ensuring resources are provided to gather sufficient knowledge to maintain a basis on which to achieve these objectives of restoration and enhancement. Of course we support the principle that efforts to restore enhanced populations and habitats should be based on sound science. Indeed, using sound science responsibly is one of the five guiding principles of the sustainable development strategy, to which we are committed.
	We think that the amendment is unnecessarily prescriptive. It may not be appropriate for many types of public authority to provide resources for the collection of scientific knowledge and data. It is difficult to define what resources may be needed to gather sufficient scientific knowledge. This could potentially place an unwieldy resource burden on public bodies. It is on that basis that I ask the noble Baroness not to move that amendment when we reach it.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister made it clear that he was going to disappoint us. This is obviously not—I repeat not—the equivalent of the Latin American diplomat in the margins of whose speech appeared the words, "Weak point: shout". The Minister was robust in his reply. More significant, perhaps, was the mild problem that he seemed to be having controlling his papers. I did not say that the Government or public authorities are not doing anything about biodiversity. Indeed, I paid tribute to what is being done.
	The Minister himself said that 67 per cent of local authorities do not at present have questions relating to biodiversity in their planning procedures. That is an index of present attitudes. The Minister implied that, under the Bill, everything that can be done will be done, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied on the related subject of global warming that everything that can be done is not being done. As my noble friend Lord Peel generously implied, our task is to expand what mankind can do. Human groups change their behaviour when those leading them want them to change. The Minister must forgive us if we wonder whether the Government really want to change us.
	I realise that it is late at night. The Minister is necessarily operating under greater fatigue than I am. Of course, I shall allow for that when I reread in the morning what he said this evening. I dare say that he will reread it, too. Any body under judicial review has simply to prove that, before taking action or making decisions, it thought about the words of the Bill. I am not myself a lawyer, but my brother is.
	I close by saying that the issue seems to have caught the interest of the Committee without the Minister being able immediately to extinguish the fire. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 not moved.]
	Clause 40 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.